11 


! 


OF  DOCILITY 

A  STUDY  OF 
GERMAN  CHARACTER 


EDMOND  HOLMES 


lii 

ili 

III    'i 


llii  Hill 

i 


THE 
NEMESIS  OF  DOCILITY 

A  STUDT   OF    GERMAN   CHARACTER 


BY 


EDMOND    HOLMES 


"  Your  enemy  becomes  a  mystery  that  must  be  solved, 
even  though  it  takes  ages  ;  for  man  must  be  understood." 
,     Light  on  the  Path,  by  M.  C. 

"What  shall  it  profit  n"r,latl,  if  lie  shall  gain  the  whole 
world,  and  lose  his  -ovm  soul?" — ST.  MARK  viii.  36. 


NEW  YORK 

E-P-DUTTON  &  COMPANY 
PUBLISHERS 


5*5 


PRINTE'O  .' ijtt    .GB^AJ  -BRITAIN    BY 
RICHARD  CLAY  &  SONS..  LIMITED, 

(OK   dT.,  SjTAVi.FORD'.5T.,  S.E., 


FOREWORD 

THE  word  docility  is  not  quite  strong  enough  for 
the  purpose  of  this  book.  But  servility,  which 
seems  to  be  the  only  alternative  to  it,  if  not  too 
strong,  has  too  narrow  a  range  of  meaning.  Let  me, 
then,  explain  that  by  docility  I  mean  readiness  to 
obey  for  the  sake  of  obeying,  avidity  for  commands 
and  instructions,  reluctance  to  accept  responsibility 
or  exercise  initiative,  inability  to  react  against  the 
pressure  of  autocratic  authority.  Docility,  in  this 
sense  of  the  word,  when  it  is  a  national  char- 
acteristic, may  become  a  destructive  force  of 
extreme  violence.  For  a  docile  majority  implies 
a  dogmatic  and  domineering  minority;  and  the 
docile  majority  may  carry  docility  so  far  as  to 
become  dogmatic  and  domineering,  in  imitation 
of  their  masters,  whom  they  naturally  make  their 
model.  Thus  it  is  possible  for  a  people  to  be  as 
clay  in  the  hands  of  ambitious  and  unscrupulous 
rulers,  and  yet  to  be  arrogant,  aggressive,  and  self- 
centred  in  their  bearing  towards  the  rest  of  the 
world.  When  this  happens,  the  materials  have 
been  laid  for  a  great  conflagration,  and  only  a 
spark  is  needed  to  set  them  ablaze. 


360622 


CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I  THE   GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY            .             .  I 

II  A   DOCILE   ARMY    ......  32 

III  A   DOCILE   PEOPLE             .....  52 

IV  THE    DREAM    OF   A    DOCILE   WORLD   ...  78 
V  DEADENED    BY    DOCILITY             .              .              .              .  IIO 

VI  BRUTALIZED    BY    DOCILITY         ....  140 

VII  BETRAYED    BY   DOCILITY             .                           .             .  173 

VIII  THE   MENACE   OF    GERMAN    DOCILITY            .             .  198 

IX  OUR    DEBT   TO    GERMAN    DOCILITY     .             .             .  2l8 

X  OUR    DEEPEST    DEBT   TO   GERMAN    DOCILITY          .  247 


vii 


THE    NEMESIS    OF    DOCILITY 

CHAPTER   I 

THE    GENESIS   OF   GERMAN    DOCILITY 

THE  Germans  are  the  most  obedient  people  on 
the  face  of  the  earth.  To  say  that  they  obey 
orders  unhesitatingly,  ungrudgingly,  and  punctil- 
iously is  to  do  them  less  than  justice.  They  do 
more  than  obey  orders.  They  wait  for  them,  look 
out  for  them,  are  lost  without  them.  The  old 
legalist  formula  "  Is  it  so  commanded?  "  and  the 
complementary  formula  "  Is  it  so  permitted?  " 
are  ever  rising  to  their  lips.  At  every  turn  in  life 
they  are  met  by  the  warning  word  Verboten,  and 
they  are  glad  that  this  should  be  so.  But  their 
spirit  of  obedience  carries  them  further  than  this. 
They  not  only  do  what  they  are  told  to  do  and 
leave  undone  what  they  are  forbidden  to  do ;  they 
also  think  what  they  are  told  to  think,  believe 
what  they  are  told  to  believe,  say  what  they  are 
told  to  say.  And  this  is  not  all.  So  docile  are 
they  that  they  even  feel  what  they  are  told  to  feel. 
They  are  told  to  feel  patriotic;  and  they  sing 
with  enthusiasm  Deutschland  ueber  alles.  They 
are  told  to  desire  war;  and  they  straightway 
burn  with  martial  ardour.  They  are  told  to  be 


2  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

world-ambit  ;.o.;is;  and  they  duly  toast  "  the  Day." 
They  are  told  to  hate  France — Russia — Japan; 
and  they  hate  each  of  those  countries  with  a  right 
good  will.  Finally  they  are  told  that  England 
is  their  arch-enemy;  and  their  outraged  feelings 
find  relief  in  rancorous  hymns. 

This  is  a  singular  phenomenon.  How  are  we 
to  account  for  it  ?  The  explanation,  whatever  it 
may  be,  is  almost  certainly  historical,  not  racial. 
In  the  days  of  Tacitus  the  Germans  were  famous 
above  all  peoples  for  their  love  of  freedom.  They 
jealously  guarded  their  liberties,  not  only  against 
foreign  domination  but  also  against  domestic 
tyranny.  When  the  political  organization  of  a 
people  is  tribal,  as  that  of  Germany  was  in  those 
days,  there  is  a  danger  lest  the  chief,  the  symbol 
and  centre  of  tribal  unity,  should  become  an 
autocrat,  and  the  tribesmen  should  become  his 
subjects,  and  at  last  degenerate  into  his  slaves. 
Against  this  danger  the  Germans  seem  to  have 
taken  ample  precautions.  The  power  of  their 
kings  was  "  neither  unrestricted  nor  arbitrary." 
They  "  chose  their  commanders  for  valour," 
expected  them  to  fight  in  the  forefront  of  the  battle, 
and  followed  their  lead  rather  than  obeyed  their 
orders.  Their  gods  alone  had  the  right  to  punish 
them,  a  right  which  they  were  supposed  to  delegate 
to  the  priests,  but  to  no  one  else.  Nor  did  the 
Germans,  as  individuals,  allow  their  freedom  to 
be  crushed  by  the  undue  ascendancy  of  the  State. 
On  all  matters  of  public  importance  the  final  decision 
rested  with  the  assembly  of  the  freemen,  who  came 
armed  to  the  place  of  meeting,  listened  to  the  pro- 
posals of  their  chiefs  (who  owed  their  authority  to 


GENESIS   OF  GERMAN  DOCILITY        3 

their  power  of  persuading  rather  than  to  any  right 
to  command),  rejected  by  loud  outcries  what  dis- 
pleased them,  and  signified  approval  by  clashing 
their  spears.  The  chiefs  were  allowed  to  settle 
matters  of  minor  importance,  and  to  prepare  more 
important  matters  for  discussion ;  but  the  ultimate 
source  of  authority  was  the  will  of  the  people,  not 
of  an  irresponsible  overlord.  Besides  discussing 
affairs  of  state  in  their  assemblies,  the  freemen 
elected  the  chiefs  who  were  to  administer  justice 
in  the  cantons  and  villages,  and  assigned  to  each 
of  these  a  hundred  assessors  "  both  to  give  advice 
and  to  add  authority." 

But  though  they  allowed  no  one  to  encroach 
on  their  freedom,  there  was  one  thing  which  the 
Germans  gave  in  generous  measure  to  the  chiefs 
whom  they  had  chosen  to  lead  them  in  battle — the 
devotion  of  brave  and  loyal  hearts.  "It  is  a 
cause  of  infamy,"  says  Tacitus,  "  and  taunts  for 
life  that  a  follower  shall  have  survived  his  chief 
and  returned  (alive) ;  to  defend  their  chief,  to 
guard  him,  to  attribute  even  their  own  exploits 
to  his  name,  is  their  most  sacred  oath  of  loyalty; 
the  chief  fights  for  victory,  the  followers  for  their 
chief."  The  devotion  of  a  free  people  to  the 
leaders  whom  they  have  voluntarily  sworn  to 
follow  is  worthy  of  the  sacred  name  of  loyalty. 
But  if  such  a  people  were  to  lose  their  freedom, 
their  loyalty  might  well  degenerate  into  blind 
obedience,  and  fear  and  the  force  of  habit 
might  take  the  place  of  worthier  motives  to 
self-sacrifice. 

How  did  this  freest  of  all  free  peoples  lose  its 
freedom  ?  Since  the  days  of  Tacitus  it  has  mixed 


4  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

its  blood,1  especially  in  the  regions  east  of  the 
Elbe,  with  that  of  other  races,  but  not  to  an  extent 
which  could  account  for  the  change  from  the  ex- 
treme of  independence  to  the  counter-extreme  of 
servility.  It  is  probable  that  here,  as  elsewhere, 
heredity  counts  for  very  little,  whereas  tradition, 
as  determining  environment,  counts  for  a  great 
deal.  How,  then,  did  the  tradition  grow  up  which 
made  so  radical  a  change  in  the  German  character  ? 
Before  we  attempt  to  answer  this  question  let 
us  ask  ourselves  what  freedom  means.  Speaking 
generally,  we  may  say  that  freedom  means  release 
or  exemption  from  constraint.  But  this  definition 
does  not  carry  us  far.  If  freedom  is  prized,  as  it 
usually  is,  by  those  who  enjoy  it,  the  inference  is 
clear  that  the  corresponding  constraint  is  hurtful, 
if  not  actually  harmful.  Now  the  hurtful  constraint 
which  presses  on  a  whole  people,  and  the  release 
from  which  constitutes  political  freedom,  is  of 
two  kinds, — foreign  domination,  and  domestic 
tyranny.  Corresponding  to  this  distinction  we 
have  two  kinds  of  freedom;  and  these  are  not 
always — perhaps  not  often — conjoined.  Again  and 
again  a  people  has  had  to  surrender  domestic 
freedom  in  order  to  purchase  freedom  from  foreign 
domination.  In  the  days  of  Ancient  Rome,  when 
the  Republic  was  in  danger  of  invasion,  a  dictator 
was  appointed  who  was  an  irresponsible  autocrat 
as  long  as  his  term  of  office  lasted;  just  as  in  our 

1  Even  in  those  days  its  blood  was  by  no  means  pure. 
It  may  be  doubted  if  there  has  ever  been  such  a  thing  as 
a  German  "  race."  The  German  peoples  belong,  and, 
so  far  as  we  know,  have  always  belonged,  to  two  great 
"  races," — the  "  Teutonic  "  and  the  "  Alpine,"  of  which  the 
latter  is,  in  point  of  numbers,  the  preponderant  race. 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY        5 

own  day,  when  the  safety  of  the  State  is  imperilled, 
martial  law  is  proclaimed  and  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship are  temporarily  suspended.  Nor  was  the 
dictatorship  an  exclusively  Roman  institution. 
Other  countries  have  had  dictators,  under  other 
names;  and  some  of  these  have  been  conquerors 
of  their  neighbours'  territories  as  well  as  defenders 
of  their  own.  In  such  cases  the  loss  of  its  own 
domestic  freedom  is  the  price  which  the  conquering 
people  has  had  to  pay  for  the  suppression  of 
freedom  (in  both  senses  of  the  word)  in  the  con- 
quered lands. 

Domestic  freedom  is  of  many  kinds.  Freedom 
from  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  tyranny,  exer- 
cised in  defiance  of  law,  or  beyond  the  limits  of 
law,  is  one  kind.  Freedom  from  unfair  adminis- 
tration of  the  law  is  another  kind.  Freedom  from 
the  positive  pressure  of  unjust  law  is  a  third  kind. 
Freedom  from  the  negative  pressure  of  inadequate 
law  is  a  fourth.  Freedom  from  the  burden  of  a 
meticulous  and  inquisitorial  system  of  law  is  a 
fifth.  As  a  rule,  domestic  tyranny  is  exercised 
by  a  small  minority, — an  autocrat  in  some  cases, 
an  oligarchy  in  others.  If  freedom  from  such 
tyranny  is  to  be  secured,  those  who  administer 
the  affairs  of  state  and  those  who  make  and  amend 
laws  must  be  responsible  to  the  people.  In  other 
words,  we  must  have  a  government  which  is  demo- 
cratic, in  the  sense  of  having  behind  it  the  popular 
will.  But  even  in  a  democracy  there  may  be 
much  domestic  tyranny.  For,  apart  from  the 
fact  that  popular  government  readily  lends  itself 
to  manipulation  by  cliques  and  coteries,  majorities 
are  sometimes  as  unjust  and  oppressive  as  autocrats 


6  THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

and  oligarchies;  and  in  any  case  it  is  impossible 
to  devise  a  system  of  government  in  which  the 
rights  of  individuals  or  even  of  minorities  shall  be 
fully  safeguarded.  This,  however,  does  not  alter 
the  fact  that  only  by  progress  in  the  direction  of 
popular  government  can  domestic  freedom  be 
extended  and  secured. 

There  is  another  and  a  more  inward  kind  of 
freedom  which  is  closely  connected  with  domestic 
freedom,  but  admits  in  exceptional  cases  of  being 
almost  entirely  divorced  from  it, — freedom  from 
the  tyrannical  pressure  of  opinion,  of  convention, 
of  fashion,  and  the  like.  This  pressure  is  usually 
exercised  by  unorganized  majorities;  but  it  is 
sometimes  deliberately  organized  by  a  despotic 
State,  through  its  control  of  education,  religion, 
the  Press,  and  other  forces  that  direct  and  influence 
opinion. 

Behind  this  more  inward  freedom  is  the  freedom 
of  the  spirit, — freedom  of  conscience,  freedom  of 
belief,  freedom  of  imagination,  freedom  of  desire. 
This  freedom  is  the  most  vital  of  all.  A  man  is 
not  really  free  unless  his  soul,  his  self,  his  desire, 
his  will  is  behind  his  action.  This  is  the  ideal,  by 
reference  to  which  the  degree  of  his  freedom  is  to' 
be  measured.  It  is  the  same,  mutatis  mutandis, 
with  a  people.  And  it  is  for  the  sake  of  this  ideal, 
however  remote  it  may  be  from  conscious  thought, 
that  freedom  has  been  glorified  and  that  men  have 
fought  and  died  under  its  banner.  If  I  may  not 
live  my  own  life,  if  I  am  to  be  the  mere  instrument 
of  another's  will,  I  am  not  truly  alive.  This  is 
what  the  lover  of  freedom  has  ever  said  to  himself 
in  some  silent,  secret  recess  of  his  soul. 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN  DOCILITY        7 

There  is  hope  for  a  people  which  has  lost  its 
freedom,  so  long  as  it  refuses  to  bow  its  soul  to 
the  yoke.  But  it  sometimes  happens  that  a 
people  resigns  itself  to  its  loss,  and  even  ends  by 
becoming  proud  of  its  bonds.  When  this  happens, 
independence  has  transformed  itself  into  servility, 
and  the  loss  of  freedom  is  complete. 

This  is  what  has  happened  in  Germany.  The 
Germans  cheerfully  submit  to  a  domestic  tyranny 
which  is  oppressive  and  inquisitorial  in  the  highest 
conceivable  degree,  and  then  allow  their  professors 
to  tell  them  that  they  are  the  freest  people  in  the 
world.  What  has  brought  them  to  this  pass? 
There  is  another  question  which  must  take  pre- 
cedence of  this.  In  the  oriental  Empires,  and  in  all 
parts  of  the  Roman  Empire,  freedom,  when  Tacitus 
wrote,  was  dead.  How  had  the  Germans  managed 
to  keep  it  alive  for  so  long?  By  remaining  un- 
conquered  and  uncivilized,  is  the  obvious  answer 
to  this  question.  In  the  days  of  Tacitus  the 
Germans  were  still  in  the  tribal  stage  of  develop- 
ment ;  and  it  was  long  before  they  outgrew  that 
stage.  While  they  remained  in  it,  it  was  possible 
to  hold  assemblies  of  the  freemen,  in  spite  of  the 
absence  of  roads  and  bridges  and  the  difficulty 
of  travelling  through  a  country  of  forests  and 
marshes,  for  the  area  of  each  self-governing  state 
was  comparatively  small.  For  the  same  reason, 
or  rather  because  the  population  was  correspond- 
ingly small  besides  being  largely  homogeneous, 
a  simple  form  of  government  was  sufficient  for 
the  needs  of  the  people. 

So  long  as  the  Germans  were  contained  by  the 
frontiers  which  the  Roman  Legions  had  defined 


8  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

for  them,  they  kept  their  primitive  political  con- 
stitution with  but  little  change.  But  when,  under 
pressure  from  the  east,  they  began  to  move  south 
and  west,  and  when  the  ramparts  of  the  Roman 
Empire  could  no  longer  sustain  the  weight  of 
their  arms,  they  passed  into  another  world.  They 
passed  into  a  world  far  more  highly  civilized  (in 
the  conventional  sense  of  the  word)  than  their 
own, — more  centralized,  more  fully  organized,  in 
a  more  advanced  stage  of  social  and  political 
development.  Above  all,  they  passed  into  a 
world  in  which  authority  descended  from  the  apex 
instead  of  ascending  from  the  base  of  the  body 
politic,  its  ultimate  source  being  the  will  of  an 
autocrat  rather  than  the  collective  will  of  a  free 
people.  When  the  conquering  Germans  entered 
this  new  world,  they  discovered — sooner  or  later — 
that  they  had  left  their  own  social  and  political 
life  behind  them.  The  organization  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  even  in  its  decadence,  was  too  strong  for 
them.  It  was  only  by  making  use  of  the  existing 
machinery  of  government,  rusty  and  half  worn 
out  though  this  was,  that  the  leaders  of  the  in- 
vading Germans  could  administer  the  affairs  of 
the  Roman  provinces  that  they  conquered.  This 
meant  that  they  must  rule  the  provinces  as  kings, 
and  that  among  the  subjects  of  their  realms  they 
must  count  the  German  warriors  who  had  hitherto 
regarded  them  as  little  more  than  "  first  among 
their  peers."  The  idea  of  ruling  the  new  kingdoms 
by  means  of  assemblies  of  the  victorious  warriors 
was  as  impracticable  as  that  of  allowing  the  subject 
peoples  to  govern  themselves.  Diets  of  the 
"  notables  "  might  take  the  place  of  the  assemblies 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY        9 

of  the  freemen;  but  the  voice  of  the  people,  the 
echoes  of  which  had  so  deeply  impressed  Tacitus, 
grew  gradually  dumb.  The  loss,  partial  if  not 
total,  of  their  own  domestic  freedom  was  the 
price  which  the  invading  Germans  had  to  pay  for 
their  victories  over  peoples  more  highly  civilized 
but  less  vigorous  than  themselves. 

A  change  so  revolutionary  as  this  could  not  fail 
to  make  its  influence  felt  in  Germany  proper.  If 
on  one  side  of  the  Rhine  or  the  Meuse  the  German 
warriors  had  become  the  subjects  of  a  more  or 
less  autocratic  ruler,  could  they  long  remain  free 
on  the  other  side?  Apart  from  the  more  occult 
and  subtle  forms  of  reaction  which  worked  by 
diffusing  influence  rather  than  by  exerting  direct 
pressure,  the  wave  of  conquest  which  had  sub- 
merged the  Roman  provinces  adjacent  to  Germany 
was  bound,  sooner  or  later,  to  sweep  back  over 
the  land  of  the  conquerors.  For  the  conquering 
Germans  had  learnt  lessons  from  the  conquered 
peoples,  which  they  would  be  able,  if  occasion 
required,  to  turn  to  account  against  their  own 
kinsmen.  The  German  kings  who  ruled  over 
what  had  once  been  provinces  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  who  in  part  at  least  had  adopted  and 
utilized  the  systems  of  administration  which  they 
found  in  the  lands  that  their  arms  had  won,  would 
in  course  of  time  be  the  masters  of  more  highly 
organized  and  therefore  stronger  armies  than  any 
which  the  Germans  beyond  the  Rhine  could  put 
in  the  field. 

It  was  from  the  west  that  the  first  great  wave 
of  counter-conquest  came.  Towards  the  close 
of  the  fifth  century  A. D.  the  Salian  Franks,  who 


10  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

dwelt  in  what  is  now  called  Flanders,  under  the 
leadership  of  Chlodwig,  or  Clovis,  entered  Gaul, 
which  was  perhaps  the  most  highly  civilized  of 
all  the  Roman  Provinces,  overcame  its  earlier 
Germanic  invaders,  and  made  themselves  masters, 
first  of  Northern  Gaul  and  then  of  Western 
Gaul  or  Aquitania.  Before  they  embarked  on 
their  career  of  conquest,  the  Salian  Franks,  whose 
probable  ancestors,  the  Sicambri,  were  settled  by 
Tiberius  near  the  mouths  of  the  Rhine,  had  been 
nominally  subject  to  Roman  rule  and  had  been 
accustomed  to  serve  in  the  Roman  armies.  They 
thus  carried  with  them  on  their  expeditions  the 
Roman  tradition  of  discipline  and  order.  Also, 
by  accepting,  in  the  person  of  King  Clovis,  Catholic 
as  opposed  to  Arian  Christianity,  they  entered 
into  an  alliance  with,  and  so  came  under  the 
civilizing  influence  of,  the  Church,  which,  on  the 
downfall  of  the  Empire,  had  become  the  chief 
centre  and  agency  of  organization  in  Western 
Europe.  Having  conquered  the  greater  part  of 
Gaul,  Clovis  turned  his  arms  against  his  eastern 
neighbours,  subdued  the  Alemanni — one  of  the 
great  leagues  of  German  tribes — and  colonized 
the  part  of  their  territory  between  the  Neckar  and 
the  Main.  His  sons  and  grandsons  completed  the 
conquest  of  the  Alemanni,  established  a  suzerainty 
over  Bavaria,  and  conquered  Burgundy  and 
Southern  Gaul. 

Under  the  degenerate  Merovingian  kings  the 
tide  of  Frankish  conquest  was  arrested ;  but  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighth  century,  Charlemagne, 
King  of  the  Franks  (whom  we  may  now  regard 
as  "  Romanized  Teutons  "),  following  in  the  foot- 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY      11 

steps  of  his  martial  forefathers,  Peppin  of  Heristal 
and  Charles  Martel,  conquered  and  christianized 
the  Saxons  (who  occupied  the  greater  part  of 
North  Germany,  east  of  the  Rhine),  conquered  the 
Lombards  in  Northern  Italy  and  put  an  end  to 
their  dynasty,  turned  the  Frankish  suzerainty 
over  Bavaria  (a  large  country  which  stretched  to 
the  confines  of  modern  Hungary)  into  effective 
sovereignty,  made  many  minor  conquests  of 
German  tribes,  and  pushed  the  frontiers  of  Germany, 
at  the  expense  of  her  Sclavonic  neighbours,  far 
to  the  east.  Half-a-century  later  the  greater 
part  of  what  is  now  called  France  separated  from 
Germany,  the  debatable  land  of  Lotharingia — 
a  future  battle-ground  of  the  nations — dividing 
the  two  countries,  or  rather  being  divided  between 
them  in  ever- varying  proportions.1 

The  union  of  France  and  Germany  under  one 
government  was  short-lived;  but  in  one  respect 
it  produced  important  results.  The  origin  and 
rise  of  feudalism  in  Germany  are  involved  in 
obscurity;  but  as  "  feudalism  was  an  especially 
Frank  system  and  was  carried  out  more  definitely 
in  France  than  elsewhere,"  2  we  may  safely  con- 
jecture that  in  the  days  of  Charlemagne  and  his 
successors  the  feudalizing  of  Germany,  under  the 
influence  of  Frank  ascendancy,  made  rapid  progress. 
'  In  theory,"  says  Stubbs,  "  the  feudal  system 
originates  in  the  conquest  of  a  kingdom,  which  is 
parted  out  by  the  king  or  general  among  his 
followers,  who  hold  their  shares  of  him  by  military 

1  Except,  indeed,  so  far  as  it  passed  under  other  owner- 
ship or  won  independence  for  itself. 

2  Stubbs. 


12  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

service,  and  subdivide  that  share  to  their  followers 
in  turn  on  similar  or  lower  services."  The  actual 
origin  of  feudalism  was  widely  different  from  this. 
The  Roman  custom  of  making  grants  of  land 
(beneficia)  on  condition  of  military  service,  was  no 
doubt  a  factor  in  the  evolution  of  feudal  ideas. 
But  in  the  main  those  ideas  were  distilled  from  a 
widespread  practice  which  grew  up  under  the  stress 
of  social  necessity.  In  times  of  social  and  political 
chaos,  such  as  those  which  preceded  and  followed 
the  downfall  of  the  Western  Empire,  when  govern- 
ments were  too  weak  to  discharge  their  normal 
functions,  and  when  desultory  warfare  was  inces- 
sant, the  smaller  and  weaker  landowners  would 
seek  protection  against  foreign  aggression  and 
domestic  oppression  from  a  powerful  neighbour — 
"a  strong  man  armed"— who  would  give  them 
what  they  sought  if  they  were  willing  to  pay  his 
price.  The  price  which  they  had  to  pay  was  the 
surrender  of  their  land,  which  they  would  hence- 
forth hold  as  vassal  tenants,  giving  military  and 
other  services  in  lieu  of  rent.  In  this  way  private 
obligation  would  gradually  take  the  place  of  public 
duty,  the  feudal  lord  giving  to  his  tenants  the 
protection  which  they  had  a  right  to  look  for 
from  the  State,  and  receiving  from  them  the 
military  service  which  the  State  alone  had  the 
right  to  demand.  But  the  protecting  lord  might 
himself  stand  in  need  of  protection ;  and  in  that 
case  he  would  go  to  a  more  powerful  magnate  and 
make  arrangements  with  him  similar  to  those 
which  his  own  tenants  had  made  with  himself. 
In  this  way  the  feudal  system  would  gradually 
spread  upwards — though  also  to  some  extent 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY      13 

downwards,  for,  under  the  influence  of  the  ideas 
which  were  emerging  from  feudal  practice,  con- 
quering chiefs,  following  the  example  of  the 
Merovingian  kings  who  had  adopted  the  Roman 
practice  of  granting  beneficia,  would  parcel  out 
conquered  lands  among  their  followers,  to  be 
held  on  feudal  terms — till  at  last  even  the  wiser 
kings,  who,  foreseeing  its  political  consequences, 
had  hitherto  resisted  the  movement,  would  find 
it  expedient,  as  they  could  not  otherwise  raise 
armies  for  their  projected  expeditions,  to  accept 
it  and  place  themselves  at  its  head.  When  the 
system  had  been  firmly  established  and  had  been 
generally,  if  not  universally,  adopted,  the  practice 
would  grow  up  of  conferring  governorships  and 
important  magistracies  on  powerful  feudal  lords, 
and  so  delegating  to  them  powers  and  duties — 
judicial  and  financial  as  well  as  military — which 
properly  belonged  to  the  State.  At  first  these 
offices  would  be  held  at  the  King's  pleasure ;  but  as 
they  carried  with  them  the  temporary  ownership  of 
vast  territorial  possessions,  and  as  the  ownership 
of  land  had  been  transmitted  from  father  to  son 
before  the  days,  and  also  in  the  earlier  days,  of 
feudalism,  they  would  naturally  tend  to  become 
hereditary,  and  the  authority  which  had  been 
delegated  would  tend  to  become  inherent.  When 
this  point  had  been  reached,  the  feudal  lord — duke 
or  count,  as  the  case  might  be — would  have  become 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  sovereign  in  his  own 
duchy  or  county,  and  the  tie  of  allegiance  that 
bound  him  to  his  overlord  would  be  ready  to 
snap. 

When  the  feudal  system  was  fully  developed, 


14  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

the  theory  of  feudalism,  as  set  forth  by  Stubbs, 
became  operative.  Political  power  was  supposed 
to  be  inherent  in  the  ownership  of  land.  The 
ultimate  owner  of  all  land,  and  therefore  the  ulti- 
mate source  of  all  authority,  was  the  king.  Next 
to  the  king  came  the  great  vassals,  to  whom  he 
apportioned  the  lands  of  his  kingdom  and  delegated 
much  of  his  authority.  The  great  vassals  in  their 
turn  apportioned  lands  and  delegated  authority 
to  the  lesser  vassals.  Where  the  ownership  of 
land  ceased,  political  power,  and  therefore  political 
freedom,  ceased  with  it.  The  introduction  of 
feudalism  may  be  said  to  have  turned  the  political 
constitution  of  the  German  states  upside  down. 
"  In  Germany,"  says  the  writer  of  the  article  on 
"  Feudalism "  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica, 
"  before  the  feudal  system  came  in,  the  chief  func- 
tions of  government,  military,  judicial,  financial, 
legislative,  were  carried  on  by  the  freemen  of  the 
nation,  because  they  were  members  of  the  body 
politic,  and  were  performed  as  duties  owing  to  the 
community  for  its  defence  and  sustenance."  In 
Germany,  after  the  feudal  system  had  established 
itself,  all  the  functions  of  government  were  vested 
in  the  king  and  were  delegated  by  him  to  his 
vassals  in  their  several  degrees,  while  the  bulk 
of  the  freemen,  having  become  landless,  had 
ceased  to  be  free.  By  substituting  the  will  of  an 
autocrat  for  the  will  of  the  people,  and  service  of 
a  vassal  to  his  lord  for  service  of  a  citizen  to  the 
State,  and  by  investing  every  landholder  with 
political  power  over  his  tenants,  the  feudal  system 
extinguished  domestic  freedom.  But  not  in 
Germany  only.  Feudalism  came  into  Germany 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY      15 

later  than  into  France,  was  less  systematically 
developed,  and  never  wholly  supplanted  the 
allodial  tenure  of  land.  Also  the  dukes  and  the 
counts  continued  to  be  nominated  by  the  German 
king  long  after  the  dukedoms  and  counties  had 
become  hereditary  in  France.  It  is  not  in  having 
lost  her  domestic  freedom  through  being  feudalized 
that  Germany  differs  from  other  Western  countries, 
but  in  having  failed  to  recover  it. 

Why  did  Germany  fail  to  recover  her  lost  free- 
dom ?  WThy  has  the  spirit  of  freedom  never  revived 
in  her  except  fitfully  and  locally?  x  Why  does 
the  dead  hand  of  feudalism  still  hold  her  in  its 
grip  ?  Chiefly,  I  think,  because  in  the  course  of 
her  strange  and  unhappy  history,  Germany  broke 
up  into  a  multitude  of  independent  states,  and 
because  it  was  easier  for  the  ruler  of  a  small  princi- 
pality to  retain  the  despotic  power  which  feudalism 
had  bequeathed  to  him  than  for  the  ruler  of  a  large 
country,  in  which  there  would  be  many  grades 
and  classes  of  people,  many  influential  interests — 
industrial,  commercial,  professional,  as  well  as 
rural — a  public  opinion  which  carried  real  weight, 
and  a  population  sufficiently  large  for  combined 
action  in  defence  of  its  liberties  to  become  a 
formidable  movement. 

But  why  did  Germany,  alone  among  European 

1  In  the  Netherlands  freedom  found  an  asylum  on  the 
shores  of  the  North  Sea,  in  Switzerland  in  the  valleys  of 
the  high  mountains.  Cherishing  freedom  as  they  did, 
the  Netherlanders,  or  "  Dutch,"  and  the  Swiss  gradually 
separated  themselves  from  the  rest  of  Germany,  and  after 
the  Thirty  Years'  War  their  independence  of  the  Empire 
was  formally  acknowledged. 


16          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

countries,  break  up  into  a  multitude  of  independent 
states  ?  For  many  reasons.  Disruptive  forces  were 
at  work  in  her  from  the  earliest  days.  She  had 
scarcely  begun  to  emerge  from  tribalism,  when 
Charlemagne  united  her  under  his  sway.  The  tribes 
had  indeed  agglomerated,  rather  than  amalgamated, 
into  five  great  "  nations."  But  not  only  did  those 
nations  cling  tenaciously  to  their  respective 
nationalities,  as  against  the  supernationality  of 
Germany,  but  also,  under  the  surviving  influence 
of  tribalism,  they  were  ready  to  break  up  into 
smaller  states  whenever  the  centripetal  forces 
which  Charlemagne  had  brought  into  play  in  the 
eighth  century,  and  Henry  the  Fowler  and  Otto 
the  Great  in  the  tenth,  were  appreciably  weakened. 
And  these  forces  were  seriously  and  persistently 
weakened,  first  by  the  disruptive  influence  of 
feudalism,  and  then — the  latter  cause  reacting  on 
and  aggravating  the  former — by  the  connection 
between  the  German  crown  and  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire. 

Here  we  come  to  what  differentiates  mediaeval 
Germany  from  other  Western  countries.  She  was 
still  tribal  at  heart  while  she  was  being  feudalized, 
so  that  two  streams  of  tendency,  each  of  which  was 
hostile  to  national  unity,  were  able  to  reinforce 
and  interpenetrate  one  another.  And,  to  make 
matters  worse,  the  germs  of  disintegration  which 
were  latent  in  feudalism  were  roused  to  abnormal 
activity  by  the  growing  weakness  of  the  German 
crown,  distracted  as  its  holders  were  between 
Germany  and  Italy,  and  drained  as  they  were  of 
their  resources  by  their  invasions  of  Lombardy 
and  quarrels  with  the  Popes. 


GENESIS   OF  GERMAN  DOCILITY      17 

It  was  indeed  an  evil  day  for  Germany  when 
Charlemagne  allowed  himself  to  be  crowned 
Emperor  of  the  West.  And  it  was  a  still  more 
evil  day  when  Otto  the  Great,  who,  like  his  father 
Henry  the  Fowler,  had  done  much  to  civilize  and 
unify  Germany,  succumbed  to  the  same  temptation. 
Charlemagne  had  made  himself  master  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Italy  (i.  e.  of  Lombardy  and  Tuscany) 
before  he  was  crowned  Emperor.  Otto  the  Great 
had  made  himself  overlord  of  the  same  territory. 
Thenceforth  the  German  Kings,  as  Roman  Em- 
perors, claimed  sovereignty  over  Northern  Italy — 
a  claim  which  the  powerful  Lombard  and  Tuscan 
cities  were  slow  to  acknowledge — as  well  as  the  right 
to  keep  order  at  Rome,1  and  exercise  a  general 
supervision  over  the  Papacy. 

Thus  began,  or  rather  was  renewed,  that  connec- 
tion between  Germany  and  Italy — Northern  Italy 
and  Papal  Rome — which  was  destined  to  bring 
centuries  of  woe  to  both  countries.  "  Never,"  says 
Stubbs,  "  since  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great,  and 
of  course  never  before,  had  there  been  sufficient 
union  and  consistence  in  the  mass  of  the  kindred 
nations  of  Germany  to  make  it  safe  for  a  moment 
to  withdraw  the  ordering  ruling  hand,  or  to  distract 
the  ruling  head  with  foreign  cares.  The  annexation 
of  Italy  meant  the  disruption  of  Germany."  From 

1  In  order  to  establish  the  principle  that,  as  German 
King,  he  had  the  right  of  sovereignty  over  Rome,  Henry  II 
(1002-1024)  took  tne  title  of  "King  of  the  Romans"; 
and  this  became  the  recognized  title  of  the  German  kings 
before  their  coronation  as  Emperors.  Henry  VI  (1190- 
1197)  was  the  first  to  take  the  title  during  the  lifetime  of 
the  Emperor.  Thenceforth,  any  one  elected  and  crowned 
during  an  Emperor's  lifetime,  took  the  title  as  a  matter  of 
course. 
C 


18          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

the  time  of  Otto  the  Great  onward — for  nearly 
three  centuries— the  kings  of  Germany,  as  Emperors 
of  the  West,  absented  themselves  for  long  periods 
from  their  German  dominions,  and  dissipated  in 
warfare  in  Northern  Italy  and  in  constant  struggles 
with  the  Papacy  (which  was  always  able  to  stir  up 
rebellion  against  them  in  both  countries)  the  energies 
and  resources  which  were  needed  for  the  effective 
control  of  their  unruly  vassals. 

Writing  of  the  unhappy  epoch  in  the  middle  of 
the  thirteenth  century,  when  the  great  Hohen- 
stauf  en  dynasty  had  come  to  an  end,  when  the  Papacy 
had  triumphed  over  the  Empire,  when  Italy,  both 
Northern  and  Southern,  had  been  lost  to  the 
Emperors,  the  author  of  The  Holy  Roman  Empire 
asks  why  the  Emperors  should  not  still  have  been 
strong  in  Germany,  just  as  the  English  kings  were 
strong  in  England  even  when  they  had  lost  their 
extensive  dominions  in  France.  "So  it  might 
once  have  been,"  he  answers,  "  but  now  it  was  too 
late.  The  German  Kingdom  broke  down  beneath 
the  weight  of  the  Roman  Empire.  To  be  universal 
sovereign  Germany  had  sacrificed  her  own  political 
unity  and  the  vigour  of  her  national  monarchy. 
The  necessity  under  which  projects  in  Italy  and 
disputes  with  the  Pope  laid  each  Emperor  of  pur- 
chasing by  concessions  the  support  of  his  own 
princes,  the  ease  with  which  in  his  absence  the 
magnates  could  usurp,  the  difficulty  which  the 
monarch  found  in  resuming  the  privileges  of  the 
crown,  the  temptation  to  revolt  and  set  up  pre- 
tenders to  the  throne  which  the  Holy  See  held  out — 
these  were  the  causes  whose  steady  action  laid  the 
foundation  of  that  territorial  independence  which 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY      19 

rose  into  a  stable  fabric  at  the  era  of  the  Great 
Interregnum."  But  these  were  not  the  only  causes. 
As  Stubbs  has  well  said,  "  the  fact  that  Germany 
could  so  easily  and  so  generally  break  up,  shows  that 
the  annexation  of  Italy  was  not  the  cause  but  the 
occasion  of  disruption."  The  centrifugal  tendencies 
of  German  tribalism  were,  as  we  have  seen,  an  abiding 
cause  of  disunion,  without  which  the  causes  that 
Lord  Bryce  enumerates  might  have  failed  of  their 
effect.  The  very  measures  which  the  Emperors  took 
to  restrict  the  growing  power  of  the  feudal  lords 
made  things  worse  instead  of  better.  At  the  head 
of  the  hierarchy  of  vassal  nobles  came  the  dukes,  or 
military  governors  of  the  great  sub- kingdoms,  to 
whom  quasi-regal  powers  were  delegated  by  the 
kings  who  appointed  them.  Then  came  the  counts, 
who  were  supposed  to  administer  justice  and  other- 
wise keep  order  in  their  own  gaus  or  "  shires." 
Then  came  the  knights.  Thinking,  no  doubt,  that 
the  lesser  vassals  would  be  more  tractable  than  the 
greater,  the  Emperors  set  to  work  to  break  up  the 
German  duchies  into  smaller  political  units.  In 
this  policy  they  were  fatally  successful,  partly 
because  the  "  five  nations/'  which  had  been  trans- 
formed into  five  feudal  duchies,  were  agglomerations 
rather  than  amalgamations  of  tribes,  and  were 
therefore  ready  to  disintegrate;  partly  because  of 
the  traditional  loyalty  of  the  Germans  to  their 
more  immediate  chiefs ;  partly  because  of  the  grow- 
ing power  of  the  counts.  How  the  power  of  the 
counts  had  grown  at  the  expense  of  that  of  the 
dukes  has  been  explained  by  Stubbs.  '  The 
hereditary  succession,"  he  tells  us,  "  appears  first 
among  the  counts,  many  of  whom  no  doubt  owed 


20          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

their  position  as  counts  to  the  possession  of  allodial  " 
(and  therefore  hereditary)  "  estates.  Once  become 
hereditary,  the  position  of  count  was  more  perma- 
nent than  that  of  beneficial  duke,  and  placed  its 
owner  in  a  relation  of  rivalry  to  his  superior."  But 
when  the  dukedoms  became  hereditary,  the  ascen- 
dancy of  the  duke  over  the  count  might  have  been 
expected  to  revive.  But  this  it  failed  to  do,  "  for," 
— to  quote  Stubbs  again — "  the  Emperors  hesitated 
to  commit  to  dukes,  when  they  became  de  facto  if 
not  de  jure  hereditary,  the  same  extensive  rights 
as  representatives  of  the  sovereign  which  they  had 
held  as  beneficiaries  .  .  .  and  the  diminution  of 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  dukes  as  imperial  officers 
opened  the  way  for  the  aggrandizement  of  the 
lower  orders  of  nobility.  .  .  .  With  the  extinction 
of  the  dukedoms  (and  in  the  thirteenth  century 
they  became  extinct  either  by  death  or  subdivision) 
great  numbers  of  the  inferior  counts  became  im- 
mediately dependent  on  the  Emperor,  and  petty 
kings  whenever  the  empire  was  vacant  or  the 
Emperor  weak."  Thus  the  final  result  of  the 
dismemberment  of  the  duchies  was  an  immense 
increase  in  the  number  of  vassals  who  held  directly 
from  the  crown;  and  as  the  growing  weakness  of 
the  crown  made  effective  control  of  the  vassals  more 
and  more  difficult,  the  Emperors  achieved  nothing 
by  their  disruptive  policy  but  the  substitution  of  a 
multitude  of  petty  despots  for  a  few  sub-kings. 

But  what  of  the  people?  Why  did  not  the 
Emperors  in  their  need  summon  the  !<  Third 
Estate"  to  their  aid  ?  "  Whenever,"  says  Lord  Bryce, 
"  an  aristocracy  presses  on  both,  the  crown  becomes 
the  tacit  ally  of  the  people."  In  Germany  the 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN  DOCILITY      21 

aristocracy,  or  rather  the  feudal  nobility,  pressed 
heavily  on  both  the  crown  and  the  people.  Why, 
then,  did  the  tacit  alliance  between  the  victims 
of  that  pressure  never  become  effective?  In  other 
countries,  notably  in  England,  while  the  inevitable 
struggle  between  the  crown  and  the  nobility  was 
in  progress,  the  people,  being  intermittently  courted 
by  each  of  the  contending  parties,  began  to  recover 
some  of  their  lost  liberties,  and  the  spirit  of  freedom 
began  to  revive  among  them.  In  Germany  things 
took  a  different  course.  When  feudalism  was  at 
its  height,  the  power  of  the  people  was  a  mere 
possibility.  Authority,  in  its  descent  from  the  apex 
of  the  social  pyramid,  became  more  and  more 
oppressive  as  it  neared  the  base.  Many  of  the 
German  freemen  had  become  serfs.  Others  were  in 
a  condition  of  dependence  not  much  in  advance  of 
serfdom.  The  remainder  had  migrated  to  the  towns. 
If  the  tacit  alliance  of  which  Lord  Bryce  speaks  was 
to  materialize,  it  was  essential  that  the  crown  should 
be  strong  enough  to  play  its  part  with  effect.  When 
the  German  crown  had  need  of  the  support  of  the 
people,  it  was  too  weak  to  rally  them — down- 
trodden and  dispirited  as  they  were — round  its 
banner.  In  little  more  than  half  a  century  the 
empire  had  fallen  from  the  zenith  of  its  power 
(under  Frederic  Barbarossa)  to  its  nadir  (after 
the  death  of  Frederic  II).  When  it  was  at  the 
zenith  of  its  power,  it  seemed  to  have  no  need  of 
popular  support.  When  it  had  fallen  to  its  nadir, 
it  was  too  weak  to  command  it.  Yet  even  if  it  had 
not  fallen  so  low,  two  great  obstacles  would  have 
had  to  be  overcome  before  an  alliance  between  the 
crown  and  the  people  could  be  cemented.  The 


22  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

loyalty  of  the  Germans  to  their  immediate  chiefs 
would  have  made  them  slow  to  respond  to  an  appeal 
from  any  overlord.  And  had  the  Emperor  appealed 
to  them  for  support  and  had  they  been  willing  to 
respond  to  his  appeal,  concerted  action  on  their 
part  in  a  country  which  had  resolved  itself  into 
a  multitude  of  semi-independent  states  would  have 
been  well-nigh  impossible. 

There  was  another  quarter  from  which  help 
might  have  come  to  both  crown  and  people.  Or 
rather  there  was  a  stronghold  of  the  people  in  which 
freedom  had  begun  to  find  a  home,  from  which 
help  might  have  come  to  the  community  at  large, — 
the  towns.  The  wiser  kings,  such  as  Henry  the 
Fowler  and  Frederic  Barbarossa,  had  founded 
and  fostered  the  growth  of  towns — partly  as  refuges 
for  the  landless  freemen,  partly  as  fortresses  to 
resist  invasion,  partly  as  centres  of  trade  and 
industry — and  had  endowed  them  with  liberal 
charters  which  enabled  them  to  go  far  along  the 
path  of  self-government  :  and  these  "  Free  Cities  " 
might  have  been  expected  to  do  something,  as 
the  boroughs  did  in  England,  to  promote  unity 
in  the  nation  and  freedom  among  the  people. 
But  though  the  spirit  of  freedom  made  vigorous 
growth  in  the  Free  Cities,  it  did  not  spread 
from  them  to  rural  Germany.  In  this,  as  in  other 
matters,  the  disruptive  tendencies  which  were 
inherent  in  the  tradition,  if  not  in  the  character, 
of  the  German  people,  were  too  strong  to  be 
resisted.  The  Free  Cities  never  merged  their  life 
in  that  of  the  nation;  and  when  they  were  at 
the  height  of  their  power — in  the  days  of  the 
Hanseatic  confederacy  and  the  Swabian  and  Rhine- 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN  DOCILITY      28 

land  leagues — they  cared  more  for  their  own  com- 
mercial interests  than  for  the  welfare  of  the  German 
world.  It  is  true  that  the  wars  between  the  cities 
and  the  princes  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth 
centuries  gave  openings  to  the  crown,  which  strong 
sovereigns  might  have  turned  to  account  by  allying 
themselves  with  the  cities  and  so  promoting  the 
cause  of  German  unity  and  freedom.  But  the 
Emperors  in  those  centuries  were  either  poor  and 
weak,  or  were  so  busy  with  the  affairs  of  their 
non-German  dominions  that  they  were  content 
to  leave  Germany  to  her  own  devices  and  her  own 
civil  wars. 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  thirteenth  century.  The 
anarchy  of  the  "  Interregnum  "  and  the  remon- 
strances of  the  Pope,  who  found  that  his  revenues 
were  beginning  to  suffer  from  the  prevailing  dis- 
order, convinced  the  German  princes  that  it  was 
convenient — to  say  the  least — that  the  nation 
should  have  a  figurehead.  They  accordingly  made 
the  empire  elective  in  practice  as  well  as  in  theory, 
and  took  advantage  of  this  arrangement  to  win 
complete,  or  almost  complete,  independence  for 
themselves.  "  The  two  Pragmatic  Sanctions  of 
Frederic  II,"  says  Lord  Bryce,  "  had  conferred  rights 
that  made  the  feudal  aristocracy  almost  indepen- 
dent " ;  and  during  the  century  that  followed  his 
death  various  "  circumstances  tended  more  and 
more  to  narrow  the  influence  of  the  crown  and 
complete  the  emancipation  of  the  turbulent  nobles. 
They  now  became  virtually  supreme  in  their  own 
dominions,  enjoying  full  jurisdiction  (certain  appeals 
excepted),  the  right  of  legislation,  privileges  of 
coining  money,  of  levying  tolls  and  taxes;  some 


24          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

had  scarcely  even  a  feudal  bond  to  remind  them 
of  their  allegiance.  The  numbers  of  the  nobility 
who  held  directly  of  the  crown  had  increased  pro- 
digiously by  the  extinction  of  the  dukedoms  of 
Franconia  and  Swabia,  and  the  reduction  in  area 
of  that  of  Saxony  :  along  the  Rhine  the  lord  of  a 
single  tower  was  often  almost  an  independent 
prince.  The  petty  tyrants  whose  boast  it  was 
that  they  owed  fealty  only  to  God  and  the  Emperor 
showed  themselves  in  practice  equally  regardless 
of  both  powers."  The  Golden  Bull  of  Charles  IV 
(A.D.  1356),  which  Stubbs  calls  "  the  first  written 
exposition  of  the  Constitution  of  Germany," 
"  legalized  the  independence  of  the  electors  and  the 
powerlessness  of  the  crown."  And  though  the 
Golden  Bull  concerns  itself  with  the  rights,  privileges, 
and  immunities  of  the  Seven  Electors  only,  it  is 
tolerably  certain  that  by  that  time  the  imperial 
jurisdiction  (except  by  way  of  appeal)  had  been 
eliminated,  not  from  the  dominions  of  the  electoral 
princes  only,  but  also  from  the  dominions  of  the 
non-electoral  nobles  and  from  the  Free  Cities. 

Eighty  years  later,  having  been  taught  by  ex- 
perience that  a  poverty-stricken  Emperor,  who  was 
apt  to  become  a  puppet  in  their  hands,  was  a  source 
of  weakness  to  Germany  and  might  easily  prove 
an  exciting  cause  of  anarchy  and  civil  strife,  the 
electors  allowed  the  empire  to  become  hereditary — 
de  facto,  though  of  course  not  de  jure — in  the  House 
of  Habsburg,  which  by  a  series  of  fortunate  marriages 
had  built  up  a  large  non-German  empire  and  had 
thus  made  itself  rich  and  strong.  With  the  rise 
of  the  Habsburgs  to  imperial  power,  the  dream  of 
a  united  Germany  may  be  said  to  have  passed  away. 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN  DOCILITY      25 

The  ruler  who  drew  the  greater  part  of  his  wealth 
and  strength  from  hereditary  dominions  beyond 
the  confines  of  Germany  was  no  true  German  king. 
Indeed,  it  was  in  reliance  on  the  resources  which 
his  foreign  dominions  provided  that  Charles  V  was 
able  to  browbeat  the  German  princes,  that  Ferdinand 
II  came  within  a  little  of  making  himself  autocrat 
of  Germany,  and  that  he  and  his  successor  were 
able  to  wage  war  for  thirty  years  against  the 
Protestant  States. 

When  the  Thirty  Years'  War  was  over,  when 
religious  strife,  which  introduced  another  disruptive 
influence  into  an  already  disunited  country,  had 
done  its  deadly  work,  Germany  lay  in  fragments. 
Three  hundred  petty  states,  ranging  in  size  from 
30,000  square  miles  to  30,000  acres,  held  loosely 
together  by  an  ineffective  national  diet,  were  ruled 
by  despots  of  various  titles  who  gave  account  of 
none  of  their  ways  either  to  their  overlord  or  to 
their  subjects'.  The  Treaty  of  Westphalia  had 
secured  to  the  princes,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
almost  entire  immunity  from  imperial  control.  The 
empire  continued  to  be  an  appanage  of  the  House 
of  Habsburg,  but  it  was  now  the  thinnest  possible 
shadow  of  its  former  self.  Henceforth  those  who 
wore  the  imperial  crown  were  neither  sovereigns 
of  Germany  nor  Emperors  of  the  West,  but  rulers 
of  Austria, — a  heterogeneous  empire,  only  fractionally 
German,  the  administration  and  defence  of  which 
taxed  to  the  uttermost  their  energies  and  resources. 
In  Germany,  apart  from  the  Free  Cities,  which 
had  greatly  decreased  both  in  number  and  im- 
portance, political  freedom  was  extinct.  The  local 


26          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

diets  which  had  flourished  in  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries,  which  had  done  something 
to  check  petty  tyranny  and  keep  up  an  intimate 
relation  between  the  princes  and  their  subjects, 
and  which  might  have  developed  into  really  repre- 
sentative parliaments,  had  either  been  suppressed 
or  had  degenerated  into  servile  assemblies,  fit  only 
to  register  the  decrees  of  the  ruling  despots.  Many 
of  the  princes  made  Louis  XIV,  the  most  absolute 
of  all  monarchs,  their  model,  turned  their  courts 
into  feeble  imitations  of  Versailles,  became  alienated 
from  their  subjects  in  sympathies  and  habits,  chose 
their  ministers  from  a  servile  entourage  of  flatterers 
and  parasites,  wasted  money  on  unnecessary  armies 
and  crowds  of  household  officials,  and  wrung  dis- 
proportionately large  revenues  from  their  exhausted 
states.  And  all  this  was  borne  with  scarcely  a 
murmur.  The  one  violent  protest  which  the  lower 
orders  had  made  against  injustice  and  oppression — the 
Peasants'  War  of  1522-1526 — had  been  suppressed 
with  ruthless  cruelty,  and  had  been  succeeded  by 
a  state  of  apathy  which  was  probably  near  of  kin 
to  despair.  The  fatal  habit  of  unquestioning 
obedience,  which  had  been  growing  on  the  German 
people  ever  since  the  rise  of  feudalism,  had  now 
become  one  of  the  central  features  of  the  German 
character.  The  loyalty  which  the  warriors  in  the 
time  of  Tacitus  had  given  freely  to  their  elected 
chiefs  had  degenerated  into  a  soulless  servility, 
rooted  in  the  force  of  habit — the  corpse  of  a  once 
vital  tradition — and  in  helplessness  and  fear.  In 
the  eighteenth  century  some  of  the  German  princes 
sold  their  subjects  to  Frederic  the  Great  and  to 
our  Hanoverian  kings  as  recruits  for  their  armies, 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY      27 

at  so  much  a  head,  as  if  they  were  sheep  or  cattle. 
People  who  could  submit  to  such  treatment  as  that 
might  be  trusted  to  submit  to  anything.  As  Lord 
Bryce  has  aptly  said,  Germany  was  now  "  forced 
to  drink  to  its  very  dregs  the  cup  of  feudalism, 
feudalism  from  which  all  the  sentiment  that  once 
ennobled  it  had  departed." 

Yet  it  was  out  of  an  even  more  abject  serfdom 
that  the  people  of  France  arose  and  overthrew  the 
tyranny  that  oppressed  them,  in  that  mighty 
revolution  which  shook  to  its  foundations  the 
whole  Western  world.  Might  not  a  similar  move- 
ment have  been  possible  in  Germany?  No;  for 
Germany  was  in  bondage  to  a  widely  different  past. 
In  France  the  crown  had  overcome  the  nobility. 
In  Germany  the  nobility  had  overcome  the  crown. 
In  France  there  was  one  master,  one  country,  one 
people.  In  Germany  three  hundred  masters  had 
divided  the  country  and  the  people  amongst  them. 
In  France,  where  the  flood  of  popular  indignation 
had  a  single  wide  channel  open  before  it,  a  national 
movement  against  the  tyranny  of  the  crown  was 
possible,  especially  as  the  crown,  by  reducing  the 
nobility  to  a  state  of  political  impotence,  had  fatally 
weakened  what  might  have  been  its  own  first  line 
of  defence.  In  Germany  such  a  national  movement 
was  impossible,  for  the  river  which  flows  in  three 
hundred  channels  is  not  open  to  the  scouring  action 
of  any  descending  flood.  In  France  the  crown, 
though  its  wearer  had  once  boasted  "  I'etat  c'est 
moi,"  was  powerless  to  resist  the  will  of  an  awakened 
people.  In  Germany  the  dismemberment  of  the 
nation  showed  that  the  people  had  not  yet  awakened 
and  had  no  collective  will. 


28          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

But  is  the  extinction  of  freedom  an  unmixed 
evil?  Not  necessarily.  Epictetus  was  a  slave; 
and  in  India  and  other  Eastern  countries  a  high 
degree  of  spiritual  development  has  been  reached 
by  men  for  whom  the  words  "  political  freedom  " 
would  have  had  no  meaning.  Much  depends  on 
the  degree  and  kind  of  pressure  to  which  the  people 
are  subjected  by  their  rulers.  For  those  who  are 
so  lightly  governed  that  the  State  does  not  encroach 
on  their  inner  life,  the  loss  of  political  freedom 
may  have  great  compensating  advantages.  But 
when  people  are  heavily  governed,  when  their 
lives  are  compulsorily  regulated  in  minute  detail, 
when  commands  and  prohibitions  meet  them  at 
every  turn,  and  when  the  State,  in  order  to  facilitate 
the  work  of  administration,  tries  to  get  control  of 
the  organs  of  opinion  and  the  springs  of  social  and 
moral  action,  then  indeed  the  loss  of  public  freedom 
may  mean  the  loss  of  inward  freedom,  and  the  loss 
of  inward  freedom  may  mean  spiritual  death. 

The  history  of  modern  Germany  between  1650 
and  1870  A.D.  gives  us  examples  of  both  kinds  of 
government.  In  Southern  and  Western  Germany 
many  of  the  princes  governed  their  subjects  lightly, 
though  despotically.  And  here  and  there  was  a 
prince  who,  besides  allowing  his  subjects  to  live 
their  own  lives  within  reasonable  limits,  was  himself 
genuinely  interested  in  the  things  of  the  spirit,  and 
sincerely  anxious  to  patronize  (in  the  best  sense  of 
the  word)  learning  and  culture,  letters  and  art. 
The  subjects  of  such  a  prince,  reconciled  to  the  loss 
of  political  freedom,  detached  from  public  affairs 
and  from  the  sordid  interests  with  which  such 
affairs  are  too  often  mixed  up,  poor  but  content 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY      29 

with  their  poverty,  might — some  of  them — find 
in  freedom  of  thought  and  imagination  a  compensa- 
tion for  the  outward  freedom  which  had  been  denied 
them,  and  in  cosmopolitan  sympathy  a  compensa- 
tion for  the  absence  of  patriotic  pride.  In  such  a 
state,  under  such  patronage,  great  men  might  arise 
and  flourish,  not  soldiers  nor  statesmen,  but  thinkers, 
poets,  musicians,  scholars,  and  the  like.  Such  men 
did  arise  in  the  small  states  of  Southern  and  Western 
Germany.  During  the  century  which  began  with 
the  publication  of  Lessing's  first  drama,  Germany, 
outside  the  frontiers  of  Prussia,  was  as  spiritually 
great  as  she  was  politically  weak. 

This  is  one  side  of  the  shield.  The  other  is 
darker  and  more  sinister.  An  ambitious  ruler, 
autocratic  and  irresponsible,  with  military  gifts 
and  aspirations,  would  find  in  the  inhabitants  of 
his  state — poor  and  hardy  and  slavishly  obedient — 
ideal  subjects  for  strict  military  discipline,  and 
therefore  the  raw  material,  at  any  rate  from  the 
drill-sergeant's  point  of  view,  of  a  strong  and 
efficient  army.  Such  a  prince,  the  master  of  such 
a  state,  would  rule  his  army  through  the  medium 
of  a  military  caste,  and  his  people  through  the 
medium  of  a  well-disciplined  bureaucracy.  In 
other  words,  there  would  be  three  estates  of  the 
realm, — the  people,  who  would  be  in  a  state  of 
political  serfdom,  and  the  lowest  stratum  of  whom 
would  probably  be  serfs,  in  the  legal  sense  of  the 
word;  the  castes  of  officers  and  officials,  the  higher 
grades  of  whom  would  be  drawn  from  the  feudal 
nobility  and  gentry ;  and  the  crown.  The  function 
of  the  crown  would  be  to  command;  of  the  people 
to  obey ;  of  the  officers  and  officials,  in  their  various 


30          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

grades,  to  command  and  to  obey.  Master  of  a 
well-drilled  army  and  an  obedient  civilian  popula- 
tion, the  prince  of  this  state  might  be  expected  to 
turn  his  arms  against  his  neighbours  and  embark 
on  a  career  of  conquest. 

Such  a  prince  was  the  Great  Frederic,  and  such 
a  state  was — and  (in  all  essentials)  is — Prussia. 
The  history  of  Germany  for  the  past  two  centuries 
has  been  the  history  of  the  gradual  aggrandizement 
of  Prussia.  When  the  war  of  1866  was  over,  she 
had  conquered  the  greater  part  of  Germany.  Since 
then  she  has  Prussianized  the  rest. 

All  this  was  predestined.  Of  the  two  types  of 
ruler  it  was  inevitable  that  the  Prussian,  not  the 
Weimarian,  type  should  dominate  Germany.  For, 
whether  by  conquest  or  by  the  establishment  of 
a  hegemony,  military  absolutism  could  give  to 
Germany  what  the  princely  patronage  of  culture 
could  not  give, — the  political  unity  and  the  material 
strength  which  would  enable  her  to  hold  her  own 
against  the  possibly  hostile  nations  that  surrounded 
her.  It  is  idle  to  speculate  on  what  might  have 
happened  if  Germany  had  allowed  herself  to  be 
Weimarized  instead  of  Prussianized.  In  point  of 
fact  she  has  been  Prussianized;  and  the  unity 
which  she  has  attained  has  been  forced  upon  her, 
and  is  therefore  artificial,  material,  military, — not 
spontaneous,  not  spiritual,  not  genuinely  political. 

But  I  am  anticipating  unduly.  It  is  with  the 
genesis  of  German  docility  that  I  am  at  present 
concerned.  And  the  conclusion  which  I  have 
reached  is  that  the  slavish  docility  which  charac- 
terizes the  modern  German  is  of  hybrid  origin, 
being  the  product  of  an  unhappy  cross  between 


GENESIS   OF   GERMAN  DOCILITY      31 

tribalism  and  feudalism.  In  their  tribal  days  the 
Germans  were  the  freest  of  free  peoples.  Under 
the  dark  shadow  of  feudalism  they  lost  their  domes- 
tic freedom,  as  did  every  people  that  bowed  its 
neck  to  the  feudal  yoke.  Had  they  become  and 
remained  a  united  nation,  they  might  have  won 
back  what  they  had  lost.  But  the  disruptive 
influences  of  tribalism,  from  which  they  have 
never  fully  emerged,  co-operating  with  the  disrup- 
tive influences  of  feudalism,  in  the  absence — owing 
to  the  crown  being  weakened  by  the  burden  of  the 
Empire — of  strong  central  control,  broke  up  Germany 
into  a  multitude  of  petty  states  :  and  each  of  these 
was  ruled  for  many  generations  by  a  prince  who 
combined  in  his  own  person  the  traditions  of  a  feudal 
lord  who  had  no  overlord,  and  of  a  tribal  chief, — 
claiming  autocratic  authority  in  the  former  capacity, 
and  expecting  unstinted  loyalty  in  the  latter. 


CHAPTER   II 

A     DOCILE    ARMY 

THE  German  army  of  to-day  is  dominated  by  a 
tradition  which  it  has  inherited  from  the  Prussian 
army  of  Frederic  the  Great.  In  the  eighteenth 
century  the  peasantry  of  Prussia  were  serfs;  and 
their  serfdom,  unlike  that  of  the  Russian  peasantry, 
was  economic  in  origin  and  of  old  standing. 
Economic  serfdom,  which  reduces  a  man  to  a 
state  of  complete  and  almost  bestial  dependence 
on  his  master,  must  needs  tend  to  dull  his  wits 
and  weaken  his  will.  In  the  Prussian  serf  German 
docility  manifested  itself  as  abject  slavishness,  as 
blind  and  stupid  obedience  to  orders,  differing 
but  little  from  that  which  a  cart-horse  yields  to 
the  carter.  Lower  than  this  it  could  not  well 
sink. 

Yet  it  is  to  the  Prussian  serf  that  Germany  owes 
her  military  greatness  and  therefore  her  political 
power.  A  nation  of  serfs,  drilled  and  disciplined 
by  their  hereditary  landlords,  under  the  control 
and  direction  of  a  strong  and  able  autocrat,  would 
provide  that  autocrat  with  a  formidable  army ;  and 
it  was  as  the  master  of  such  an  army  that  Frederic 
the  Great  conquered  and  held  Silesia,  beat  off  the 
onslaughts  of  his  many  enemies  in  the  Seven  Years' 
War,  and  raised  Prussia  to  the  rank  of  a  great 

32 


A  DOCILE   ARMY  33 

European  Power,  ready,  when  the  time  came,  to 
subdue  and  Prussianize  Germany,  to  array  her  in 
"  shining  armour,"  and  make  her  a  menace  to  the 
world. 

''  The  tradition  which  the  German  army  has  in- 
herited from  the  army  of  Frederic  the  Greats  that 
of  "  iron  discipline."  What  do  we  mean  by 
"discipline"?  With  the  possible  exception  of 
the  word  "  character,"  there  is  no  word  which  has 
been  the  occasion  of  so  much  cant,  of  so  much 
insincerity,  both  intellectual  and  sentimental. 
Disciplined  troops  advance  steadily  under  a  heavy 
fire  of  shrapnel.  Undisciplined  troops,  exposed  to 
the  same  fire,  break  and  give  way.  "  See  what 
discipline  does  for  a  man,"  says  the  armchair  critic. 
"  What  an  excellent  thing  is  discipline  !  Let  us 
have  compulsory  military  service  so  that  our  man- 
hood may  enjoy  this  priceless  boon,  and  (but  this 
he  says  sotto  voce)  so  that  the  '  lower  orders  '  may 
learn  to  obey  '  their  betters,'  so  that  labour  may 
cease  to  be  a  menace  to  capital,  so  that  my  divi- 
dends may  not  be  affected  by  strikes."  Discipline 
is  indeed  an  excellent  thing.  On  this  point  we  are 
all  agreed.  But  what  is  discipline  ?  And  for  what 
purpose  or  purposes  is  it  excellent?  In  Belgium 
and  France,  during  the  present  war,  the  highly 
disciplined  German  troops  are  said  to  have  drunk 
to  excess,  outraged  women,  murdered  peaceful 
citizens,  looted  property,  and  so  forth.  Are  these 
among  the  fruits  of  "  iron  discipline  "  ?  Whatever 
else  their  training  might  have  done  for  the  soldiers 
who  did  those  things,  it  had  not  taught  them  to 
control  their  own  lusts  and  passions,  it  had  not 
taught  them  to  discipline  themselves. 

D 


34          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

The  plain  truth  is  that  military  discipline  is  not 
necessarily  a  moralizing  influence  in  a  man's  life. 
It  has  its  own  function  to  fulfil;  but  its  function  is 
not  that  of  helping  a  man  to  discipline  himself. 
Yet  self-discipline,  issuing  in  self-control — in  the 
mastery  of  lower  habits  and  instincts  through  the 
outgrowth  of  higher — is  the  truest  type  of  discipline, 
and  the  only  type  which  is  of  lasting  moral  value. 
The  function  of  military  discipline,  of  the  discipline 
which  is  based  on  systematic  drill,  is  to  enable 
many  men  to  obey,  promptly,  accurately,  and  at 
whatever  cost,  the  orders  of  one  man.  This  it  does 
by  substituting  the  blind  force  of  habit  for  other 
and  more  genuinely  human  motives.  Sustained 
by  the  force  of  habit,  which  has  perhaps  come 
within  a  little  of  making  him  an  automaton,  the 
well-drilled  soldier  will  both  execute  complicated 
manoeuvres  with  speed  and  precision  and  advance 
steadily,  in  obedience  to  orders,  into  a  zone  of  fire. 
As  long  as  we  have  wars  we  must  have  trained 
armies;  and  as  long  as  we  have  trained  armies  we 
must  have  discipline  of  this  type. 

But  let  us  not  delude  ourselves  with  the  belief 
that  the  discipline  of  drill,  because  it  is  good  to 
make  soldiers,  is  therefore  good  to  make  men.  The 
more  machine-like  it  makes  the  soldier,  the  more 
successful  it  is  from  its  own  point  of  view;  and 
though,  when  combined  with  other  and  more 
vitalizing  influences,  it  may  give  a  hardening  alloy 
to  a  man's  character,  and  help  him  to  pull  himself 
together,  and  strengthen  him  to  subdue  self-will, 
if  over-emphasized,  if  regarded  as  an  end  in  itself, 
it  will  tend  (as  we  shall  presently  see)  to  atrophy 
will  and  conscience,  and  will  thus  become  the  most 


A  DOCILE   ARMY  35 

demoralizing  influence  to  which  a  man's  life  can  be 
exposed. 

In  the  Prussian  army  there  has  always  been  a 
marked  tendency  to  regard  discipline  as  an  end  in 
itself.  In  this  respect  Prussia  has  but  carried  to 
excess  a  tendency  which  has  been  characteristic 
of  all  trained  armies,  and  has  only  recently  begun 
to  be  relaxed.  "  Until  comparatively  recently," 
says  the  author  of  Drill  and  Field  Training  (one  of 
our  Imperial  Army  Series),  "  discipline  was  de- 
veloped by  methods  which  aimed  at  producing  a 
blind,  mechanical  obedience  to  orders  through 
habits  formed  by  a  monotonous  drill  coupled  with 
severe  and  even  cruel  punishments."  These  are  the 
methods  by  which  discipline  has  always  been  and 
is  still  developed  in  the  Prussian  army ;  and  though 
there  may  be  less  rigidity  and  more  humanity  in 
the  non-Prussian  armies  of  Germany,  the  fact 
remains  that  three-fourths  of  the  armed  forces  of 
the  empire  are  under  Prussian  control  and  disci- 
pline, and  that  during  the  past  forty  years  the 
non-Prussian  armies  have  made  the  Prussian  army 
their  model.  In  other  countries  concessions  may 
have  been  made,  even  in  military  circles,  to  the 
democratic  spirit  of  the  age.  At  any  rate  there 
has  been  in  many  of  them  a  growing  tendency  to 
make  the  officer  less  of  a  drill  sergeant,  to  make  the 
soldier  less  of  an  automaton,  to  relax  the  rigour 
and  mitigate  the  severity  of  discipline,  and  to  do 
away  with  unnecessary  drill.  In  Germany,  where 
the  democratic  spirit  is  regarded  as  the  arch  enemy 
of  discipline  and  efficiency,  the  tendency  has  been 
in  the  opposite  direction.  No  one  can  read  the 
German  stories  of  military  life  which  have  been 


36          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

translated  into  English,  without  realizing  that  drill 
for  the  sake  of  drill  is  still  a  prominent  feature  in 
the  training  of  the  soldier.  The  author  of  Jena  or 
Sedan  speaks  of  "  the  greatest  torment  of  a  soldier's 
life  .  .  .  that  monotonous  drilling  under  which  all 
groaned,  and  the  object  of  which  no  one  could 
even  pretend  to  understand."  And  one  of  his 
characters,  speaking  of  the  recruits  from  the  indus- 
trial districts,  "  with  their  highly  developed  intel- 
ligence," says  that  the  military  authorities,  "  in- 
stead of  turning  this  highly  developed  intelligence 
to  good  account  .  .  .  bound  it  hand  and  foot  on 
the  rack  of  an  everlasting  drill,  which  could  not 
have  been  more  soullessly  mechanical  in  the  time 
of  Frederic  the  Great.  And  they  expected  this 
purely  mechanical  drill  to  hold  together  men  from 
whom  all  joyful  spontaneity  was  taken  by  the  stiff 
wooden  formalism  of  their  duty.  .  .  .  Drill  was  to 
maintain  discipline  among  them?  It  held  them 
together  as  an  iron  hoop  holds  together  a  cask,  the 
dry  staves  of  which  would  fall  asunder  at  the  first 
kick  !  " 

And  this  "  monotonous  drill  "  is  "  coupled  with 
severe  and  even  cruel  punishment."  It  is  probable 
that  there  is  less  cruelty  in  the  army  to-day  than 
there  was  in  the  time  of  Frederic  the  Great;  but 
there  is  still  enough  to  call  forth  frequent  and 
violent  protests  in  the  Reichstag.  Mr.  W.  H. 
Dawson,  the  author  of  What  is  Wrong  with  Ger- 
many ?  speaks  of  the  "  lamentable  prevalence  of 
cruelty  and  persecution  by  non-commissioned 
officers  as  disclosed  in  the  Reichstag  with  mono- 
tonous regularity  in  every  debate  on  the  Army 
estimates " ;  and  he  tells  of  a  sergeant  named 


A   DOCILE   ARMY  37 

Thann  who  was  accused  of  misconduct  and  mal- 
treatment in  over  600  cases,  and  whose  persistent 
cruelty  drove  a  gunner  called  Knobbe  to  commit 
suicide,  and  of  another  non-commissioned  officer 
"  who  had  committed  1500  cases  of  serious  and 
300  of  lighter  ill-treatment  of  soldiers."  And  it  is 
a  significant  fact  that  in  each  of  three  German 
military  novels  which  I  have  read  the  brutality  of 
a  non-commissioned  officer  to  his  men  is  a  central 
incident  in  the  development  of  the  story. 

But  if,  in  the  infliction  of  cruelty  on  the  soldier, 
the  non-commissioned  officer  is  usually  the  execu- 
tioner, responsibility  for  his  conduct  must  be 
shared  by  the  commissioned  officer  and  the  whole 
military  caste.  The  captain  under  whom  the  non- 
commissioned officer  mentioned  above  had  ill- 
treated  1800  soldiers  "  was  punished,"  said  Deputy 
Erzberger  in  the  Reichstag,  "  because  he  allowed 
these  acts  to  occur.  And  now  this  man  has  sud- 
denly been  advanced  to  the  rank  of  major  and 
divisional  adjutant  over  the  heads  of  a  whole  series 
of  seniors."  This  does  not  look  as  if  the  military 
authorities  regarded  systematic  cruelty  to  soldiers 
with  serious  disfavour,  though,  owing  to  the  pub- 
licity which  the  protests  of  the  members  of  the 
Reichstag  give  to  specially  scandalous  cases,  they 
may  find  it  convenient  to  visit  it  with  formal  dis- 
pleasure.1 Mr.  Dawson,  who  knows  Germany  inti- 

1  "  Vicious  as  the  system  of  persecution  still  is,"  says 
Mr.  Dawson,  "  it  would  have  been  infinitely  worse  but 
for  the  relentless  revelations  made  in  the  Reichstag  by 
the  Socialist  party."  Since  the  war  began  the  discipline 
of  the  German  Army,  brutal  at  all  times,  seems  to  have 
reached  an  abnormally  high  level  of  brutality.  In  the 
summer  session  of  the  Reichstag,  June  1915,  during  a 


38          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

mately,  regards  the  prevalence  of  cruelty  and  per- 
secution by  non-commissioned  officers  "  as  the 
expression  of  an  inherent  grossness  and  brutality 
which  have  marked  Prussian  military  rule  at  all 
times";  and  he  tells  us  that  "even  the  normal 
spirit  of  discipline  in  the  army  is  unduly  severe, 
and  the  sentences  often  passed  by  court-martials 
for  light  offences  savour  of  cruelty  and  vindictive- 
ness.  ...  It  was  stated  in  the  Reichstag  several 
years  ago  that  during  a  period  of  five  years  180,000 
soldiers  had  been  sentenced  to  an  aggregate  period 
of  2,300  years  of  penal  servitude  and  1,600  years  of 
imprisonment."  That  being  so,  it  is  obviously 
unfair  to  the  non-commissioned  officer  to  hold  him 
alone  responsible  for  the  outrages  of  which  the 


sitting  of  the  Budget  Committee,  five  Social  Democratic 
members  of  the  Committee  raised  a  discussion  on  the 
brutality  of  German  officers  to  their  men.  These  deputies 
produced  hundreds  of  letters  from  soldiers  which  went 
to  show  that  they  were  constantly  ill-treated  while  in 
barracks,  and  even  still  worse  treated  when  they  got  to 
the  front.  A  correspondent  of  the  Morning  Post  says  that 
"  what  is  most  remarkable  is  that  representatives  of  all 
parties  declared  that  they  had  received  from  soldiers  at 
the  front  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  complaints  and  ap- 
peals for  protection."  The  Minister  of  War,  who  had  already 
issued  three  or  four  general  orders  instructing  officers  to 
treat  their  men  with  humanity,  admitted  that  there  had 
been  many  proved  instances  of  gross  cruelty,  but  tried  to 
palliate  the  excesses  of  the  officers  by  alleging  that  they 
must  have  been  nervous,  or  had  insufficient  experience 
and  training.  He  appealed  to  the  Deputies  to  refrain 
from  discussing  the  scandals  in  question  at  the  plenary 
sitting  of  the  Reichstag,  because  to  do  so  would  create 
an  impression  abroad  "  as  if  the  German  Army  leaders  had 
to  resort  to  cruelty  and  force  to  drive  their  troops  to 
battle."  He  promised  that  another  general  order  should 
be  issued,  and  his  request  that  the  matter  should  not  be 
publicly  discussed  was  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the 
House. 


A   DOCILE   ARMY  39 

deputies  in  the  Reichstag  complain.  When 
authority  is  autocratic  and  descends  by  a  process 
of  devolution  from  grade  to  grade,  each  grade  in 
turn  looks  up  to  the  one  above  it  for  example  and 
guidance,  and  instinctively  tends  to  imitate  it ;  and 
the  non-commissioned  officer  may  well  plead  that 
if  brutality  were  not  in  the  atmosphere — the  upper 
aether  as  well  as  the  lower  air — of  the  German  army, 
he  would  not  be  tempted,  as  he  now  is,  to  become 
a  brutal  martinet.  He  may  also  plead  that,  when 
the  commissioned  officer  does  come  into  direct 
contact  with  the  rank  and  file,  he  is  apt  to  treat 
them  with  very  scant  courtesy.  It  was  a  com- 
missioned officer  who,  at  the  General  Headquarters 
in  Brussels,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Alexander  Powell, 
the  American  correspondent,  publicly  slashed  a 
sentinel  again  and  again  across  the  face  with  his 
riding-whip  for  being  slow  to  salute  him.  During 
the  present  war  our  soldiers  have  often  noted  with 
astonishment  that,  instead  of  leading  their  men  to 
the  attack,  the  German  officers  march  behind  them 
and  drive  them  forward  at  the  point  of  the  sword 
or  the  muzzle  of  the  revolver ;  and  they  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  men  "  fear  their  officers 
more  than  they  fear  death."  And  as  it  is  in  the 
Army,  so  it  is  in  the  Navy.  When  the  Russians 
captured  the  cruiser  Magdeburg  they  found  that  a 
cat-o'-nine-tails  was  part  of  the  equipment  of  every 
officer.  And  some  of  our  Royal  Naval  Reserve 
men  who  had  been  serving  on  a  German  liner  when 
the  war  broke  out,  and  had  thence  been  forcibly 
transferred  to  the  cruiser  Mainz,  having  been 
rescued  by  our  own  destroyers  during  the  Heligo- 
land fight,  complained  that  aboard  the  German 


40          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

warship  "  everything  was  done  at  the  point  of  the 
revolver," — a  weapon  which  officers  alone  are,  I 
believe,  privileged  to  carry. 

Why  is  the  German  soldier  still  subjected  to 
"  incessant  and  monotonous  drill  "  ?  And  why  is 
he  still  treated  with  a  severity  which  sometimes 
amounts  to  sheer  brutality?  In  order  that  a 
"  blind  mechanical  obedience  to  orders "  may 
become  the  central  feature  of  his  character.  "  The 
day  is  past,"  says  the  author  of  Drill  and  Field 
Training,  "  when  the  soldier  was  more  or  less  of 
an  automaton,  with  his  mind  entirely  subordinated 
to  the  will  of  his  officer."  So  far  as  the  German 
army  is  concerned  that  day  is  not  past.  Now,  as 
in  the  time  of  Frederic  the  Great,  and  now  more 
than  ever,  it  seems  to  be  the  fixed  purpose  of  the 
General  Staff  to  turn  the  soldier  into  "  an  auto- 
maton with  his  mind  entirely  subordinated  to  the 
will  of  his  officer."  The  author  of  the  German 
Army  from  Within  says  that  "  one  important 
defect  in  the  training  of  the  army  is  that  no  chance 
is  given  to  men  to  display  initiative.  The  German 
character  is  at  no  time  quick  in  this  direction,  and 
the  little  that  a  man  may  possess  is  studiously 
squeezed  out  of  him.  On  no  account  may  he  think 
and  act  for  himself.  He  is  simply  there  to  do  as 
he  is  told;  whether  he  understands  the  motive  of 
this  or  that  operation  is  of  no  consequence." 

This  attitude  of  the  military  "  powers  that  be  " 
towards  the  rank  and  file  of  the  army  is,  I  think, 
the  resultant  of  two  distinct  currents  of  tendency. 
The  first  is  traditional;  the  second  is  strategic  and 
tactical. 

In  the  stream  of  historical  tradition  the  German 


A   DOCILE   ARMY  41 

officer  of  to-day  is  the  lineal  descendant  of  the 
Prussian  Junker-officer  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  just  as  the  German  soldier  of 
to-day  is  the  lineal  descendant  of  the  Prussian 
serf-soldier  of  the  same  era.  Out  of  the  bearing 
of  the  Junker-officer  towards  his  serf-soldier  has 
developed  the  bearing  of  the  German  officer  of 
to-day  towards  the  German  soldier,  of  the  German 
State  towards  the  German  citizen,  of  Germany 
towards  the  rest  of  the  world.  Now,  the  bearing 
of  the  Junker-officer  towards  his  serf-soldier  did 
not  materially  differ  from  that  of  a  human  being 
towards  a  beast  of  burden.  Economic  serfdom 
naturally  tended  to  lower  the  mental  and  moral 
vitality  of  its  victims;  and  the  Prussian  officer 
therefore  took  for  granted  that  the  men  whom  he 
had  to  train  were  stupid  and  spiritless,  and  dealt 
with  them  accordingly.  Hence  the  monotonous 
drill  to  which  he  subjected  them  in  season  and  out 
of  season.  Hence  the  excessive  severity  by  which 
he  roused  them  to  effort  and  made  them  the 
creatures  of  his  will.  If  he  could  not  turn  them 
into  efficient  human  beings — intelligent,  resource- 
ful, self-reliant,  high-spirited — he  could  at  least 
turn  them  into  efficient  machines.  And  this  he 
succeeded  in  doing. 

Now,  as  it  happens,  the  tradition  which  the 
Prussian  Junker  originated  is  in  harmony  with  the 
dominant  tendency  of  military  thought  in  modern 
Germany, — the  tendency  to  regard  the  army  as  a 
vast  and  highly  complicated  machine,  to  think  more 
of  its  mechanical  efficiency  than  of  its  moral,  more  of 
the  skill  and  forethought  with  which  the  machine 
has  been  designed,  the  care  with  which  it  has  been 


42          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

constructed,  and  the  smoothness  with  which  it 
works,  than  of  the  spirit  and  intelligence  of  the 
soldiers,  who  from  this  point  of  view  are  but  the 
raw  material  of  which  it  has  been  made.  The 
improvement  in  the  means  of  transport,  the  exten- 
sion of  the  railway  system  of  Germany,  the  con- 
struction of  strategic  lines,  the  development  of 
mechanical  road-traction,  the  invention  of  the 
telephone  and  wireless  telegraphy,  have  all  made 
for  excessive  centralization  in  the  control  of  the 
army,  and  have  generated  a  tendency  in  the  mili- 
tary mind  to  think  in  terms  of  millions  of  men, 
manoeuvring  over  battlefields  which  cover  tens  of 
thousands  of  square  miles;  and  the  result  of  this 
is  that  a  whole  army  corps  has  come  to  be  regarded 
as  a  mere  pawn  on  the  giant  chess-board,  while  the 
men  who  compose  it  are  looked  at  from  a  point  of 
view  which  is  largely,  though  of  course  not  wholly, 
arithmetical.  Then,  again,  the  predominance  of 
machinery,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  word,  in 
modern  war,  and  the  extent  to  which  it  is  displacing 
human  labour  and  skill  and  even  (it  might  almost 
seem)  the  more  distinctively  human  qualities  of 
courage,  endurance,  and  self-reliance,  must  needs 
tend  to  emphasize  the  mechanical  at  the  expense 
of  the  human  view  of  warfare  and  warring  armies, 
and  therefore  to  exalt  mechanical  obedience — the 
most  non-human  of  all  virtues — to  the  highest 
place  among  the  virtues  of  the  soldier. 

At  the  present  moment  this  bastard  virtue 
counts  for  more  in  the  German  army  than  it  did 
in  the  war  of  1870.  The  "  open  "  and  "  extended  " 
order,  in  which,  out  of  deference  to  the  murderous 
properties  of  the  newly  introduced  breech-loader, 


A  DOCILE   ARMY  43 

the  German  soldiers  were  allowed  to  fight  in  that 
war,  especially  in  the  concluding  period  of  it,1  has 
been  abandoned,  and  the  close  order,  in  spite  of 
its  terrible  wastefulness  of  human  life,  has  been 
reverted  to.  One  reason  for  this  change  is  that 
the  introduction  of  the  open  order  led,  at  any  rate 
in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  war,  to  a  most  inordinate 
amount  of  skulking.  Von  Meckel,  the  military 
teacher  of  the  Japanese  and  the  stern  critic  of  the 
open  order,  declares  that  at  his  first  battle  in 
France,  on  reaching  the  scene  late  in  the  day, 
"  the  field  was  literally  strewed  with  men  who  had 
left  the  ranks  and  were  doing  nothing.  Whole 
battalions  could  have  been  formed  from  them. 
From  where  we  stood  you  could  count  hundreds. 
Some  were  lying  down,  their  rifles  pointing  to  the 
front  as  if  they  were  still  in  the  firing  line  and 
were  expecting  the  enemy  to  attack  them  at  any 
moment.  These  had  evidently  remained  behind, 
lying  down  when  the  more  courageous  had  ad- 
vanced. Whenever  a  bush  or  ditch  gave  shelter 
there  were  men  to  be  seen,  who  in  some  cases  had 
made  themselves  very  comfortable."  With  this 
experience  as  his  text,  Von  Meckel  sums  up  the  case 
against  the  open  order  in  the  following  significant 

1  "  As  the  war  of  1870  proceeded  there  was  a  tendency 
to  abandon  the  closer  order  of  battle  and  to  fight  in  more 
extended  formation.  How  far  this  was  due  to  the  general 
nature  of  the  operations,  how  far  to  the  diminished  capacity 
of  the  French  troops,  how  far  to  the  growing  experience 
and  confidence  of  the  Germans  themselves  cannot  be  dis- 
cussed here.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  in  the  concluding 
period  of  the  war  the  German  infantrymen  had  learnt  to 
fight  effectively  and  with  far  less  loss  to  themselves  in 
comparatively  open  order." — Times  History  of  the  War, 
Chap.  XIV. 


44          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

sentence — significant  in  the  light  that  it  throws  on 
the  psychology  of  the  German  soldier  and  the 
effect  of  iron  discipline  on  character  :  "  In  disper- 
sion it  is  difficult  to  be  steadfast,  in  close  order  it 
is  difficult  to  be  weak.  Under  the  leader's  influence 
the  example  of  the  strong  impels  the  whole.  Among 
the  leaderless  the  example  of  the  confused  and  the 
cowards  has  the  upper  hand."  1 

What  adds  to  the  significance  of  this  criticism  is 
that  the  German  is  almost  the  only  army  of  which 
it  now  holds  good.  In  nearly  every  other  European 
army  the  open  order  has  been  adopted;  and  it  is 
found  that  the  "  example  of  the  confused  and  the 
cowards  "  does  not  have  "  the  upper  hand."  The 
fundamental  reason  why  the  open  order  has  been 
abandoned  in  Germany — apart  from  its  being  out 
of  keeping  with  the  conception  of  an  army  as  a 
machine — is  that  iron  discipline,  when  pushed  to 
excess,  is  found  to  be  fatal  to  initiative,  resource- 
fulness, and  self-reliance,  and  to  the  kind  of  courage 
which  is  generated  by  the  outgrowth  of  those 
qualities.  And  the  only  remedy  which  the  General 
Staff  has  been  able  to  discover  for  the  shortcomings 
of  the  German  soldiers  which  the  war  of  1870 
revealed,  is  the  complete  eradication  of  the  qualities 
in  which  they  were  found  to  be  wanting.  The 
incessant  drilling  which  distressed  Captain  Giintz 
in  Jena  or  Sedan,  the  extreme  severity  with  which 
discipline  is  enforced,  are  due  to  something  more 
then  the  lingering  influence  of  a  once  powerful 
tradition.  They  have  behind  them  the  mature 
reflection  and  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  General 
Staff,  which  seems  to  have  convinced  itself  that  if 
1  Times  History  of  the  War. 


A   DOCILE   ARMY  45 

the  vast  and  complicated  machinery  of  the  German 
army  is  to  work  effectively,  the  life  of  the  individual 
soldier  must  be  so  entirely  dominated  by  the  force 
of  habit,  that  he  will  become  a  mere  automaton, 
without  a  will  and  almost  without  a  mind  of  his 
own.  And  it  is  on  this  conception  of  the  place 
and  function  of  the  soldier  that  the  strategy  and 
tactics  of  the  German  army  may  be  said  to  hinge. 
So  intimate,  indeed,  is  the  relation  between  the 
mechanical  conception  of  the  soldier  and  the 
mechanical  conception  of  the  army,  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  say  which  is  cause  and  which  effect.  But 
one  thing  is  clear.  In  the  pre-steam  days  of  our 
Royal  Navy,  the  extinction  of  initiative  by  dis- 
cipline would  have  been  calamitous,  for  accidents 
were  bound  to  occur  which,  unless  promptly  dealt 
with  by  the  nearest  bluejacket,  might  result  in 
irretrievable  disaster.  In  the  German  army  things 
must  be  so  planned  and  provided  for  that  unfore- 
seen accidents  shall  not  occur ;  for,  if  initiative  is  to 
be  suppressed  in  order  that  the  army-machine  may 
work  with  perfect  smoothness,  it  is  obviously  essen- 
tial that  the  need  for  initiative  shall  never  arise. 

We  can  now  see  that  the  two  currents  of  tendency 
which  account  for  the  predominance  in  the  German 
army  of  to-day  of  the  Prussian  ideal  of  rigid  drill- 
discipline,  readily  merge  into  one.  For  in  that 
army,  as  the  inheritor  of  the  Prussian  ideal,  tradi- 
tion and  military  science,  discipline  and  organiza- 
tion, are  ever  tending  to  act  and  re-act  on  one 
another,  the  serf-like  qualities  of  the  soldier  neces- 
sitating an  abnormally  high  degree  of  forethought 
and  calculation  in  the  organization  of  the  army — 
so  that  all  contingencies  may  be  provided  for  and 


46          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

nothing  left  to  individual  initiative, — while  the 
consequent  excessive  elaboration  of  the  adminis- 
trative machinery  necessitates  the  suppression  of 
initiative  in  the  soldier  and  therefore  the  perpetua- 
tion of  his  serf-like  qualities. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  effect  of  the  ultra- 
docility  of  the  soldier  on  the  professional  character 
and  general  bearing  of  the  officer.  The  officers,  in 
their  various  grades,  have,  of  course,  to  obey  as 
well  as  to  command.  But  for  the  moment  let  us 
think  of  them  as  commanding,  as  drilling  and 
directing  the  rank  and  file.  "  The  officer,"  said 
Captain  Giintz  in  Jena  or  Sedan,  "  was  separated 
by  a  veritable  abyss  from  the  sensations  and 
thoughts  of  the  common  soldier."  How  could  it 
be  otherwise  ?  Docility  implies  and  evokes  dogma- 
tism, just  as  dogmatism  implies  and  evokes  docility; 
and  between  the  docile  and  the  dogmatic,  between 
the  serf  and  his  master,  between  the  soldier  and  his 
officer  there  must  needs  be  a  "  veritable  abyss." 
The  soldier  is  there  to  be  drilled.  The  officer  is 
there  to  drill  him.  Much  of  the  actual  routine 
work  of  drilling  is  done  by  the  non-commissioned 
officer;  but  the  commissioned  officer  is  the  super- 
drill-sergeant,  and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  when 
he  comes  into  direct  contact  with  the  soldier,  he  is 
ready,  on  occasion,  to  hold  intercourse  with  him  by 
means  of  the  scourge,  the  sword,  and  the  revolver. 
In  any  case,  since  qui  facit  per  alium  facit  per  se, 
the  rigidity  and  brutality  of  the  drill-discipline  of 
the  German  army  are  defects  (or  virtues,  if  we  are 
to  take  the  German  point  of  view)  for  which  the 
officer  must  ultimately  be  held  responsible. 


A   DOCILE   ARMY  47 

Nor  would  he  think  of  shirking  that  responsi- 
bility. Wherever  he  may  be,  or  whatever  troops 
he  may  have  to  command,  he  is  still  the  Junker- 
officer  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  his  soldiers 
are  still  the  serfs  of  his  hereditary  domains.  Lord 
Cromer  in  a  letter  to  The  Times  tells  the  following 
instructive  story  :  "  The  German  Government  at 
one  time  expressed  a  wish  to  recruit  some  Sudanese 
in  Egypt  for  service  in  their  East  African  posses- 
sions. Permission  to  do  so  was  accorded.  A  few 
hundred  men  were  enlisted.  Some  two  or  three 
years  later  the  British  East  Africa  Company, 
which  was  then  in  existence,  made  a  similar  request. 
A  highly  qualified  British  official,  who  had  mixed 
much  with  the  Sudanese,  was  sent  to  the  district 
in  which  most  of  them  were  located  with  a  view, 
so  far  as  was  possible,  to  ascertain  how  the  proposal 
would  be  regarded  by  the  men  themselves.  On 
his  return  he  reported  that,  if  it  was  clearly  under- 
stood that  the  troops  would  be  under  British 
officers,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  obtaining 
recruits,  but  that  not  a  single  man  would  on  any 
account  enter  the  service  of  Germany.  The  reason 
given  was  that  many  of  those  who  had  been  pre- 
viously enlisted  by  the  Germans  had  returned  to 
Egypt  and  had  recounted  their  experiences.  They 
had  been  well  paid  and  well  fed,  but  they  com- 
plained bitterly  of  the  harshness  and  rigidity  of 
the  German  discipline,  and  especially  of  the  brutal 
treatment  which  they  had  received  at  the  hands 
of  the  German  officers  and  non-commissioned 
officers."  The  Sudanese  are  said  to  love  being 
drilled;  but  even  for  them  the  German  officer  was 
too  harsh  and  too  rigid  a  taskmaster. 


48          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

Between  the  super-drill-sergeant  and  his  men 
what  sympathy  can  there  be,  what  human  inter- 
course? When  ultra-dogmatism  is  on  one  side  and 
ultra-docility  on  the  other,  when  the  landowner 
and  serf-master  is  on  one  side  and  the  landbound 
serf  (or  his  lineal  descendant)  on  the  other,  the 
abyss  between  the  two,  of  which  Captain  Giintz 
spoke,  must  needs  yawn  wide  and  deep.  Before 
the  war  of  1870  the  officers  of  the  Prussian  army 
belonged  for  the  most  part  to  the  Junker  class,  and 
were  therefore  a  social  as  well  as  a  professional 
caste.  Since  then,  with  the  outgrowth  of  indus- 
trialism and  commercialism  in  Germany,  the  pro- 
portion of  "  well-born  "  (not  to  speak  of  "  high 
and  well-born  ")  officers  even  in  the  Prussian  army 
has  become  considerably  smaller  than  it  used  to 
be ;  but  those  who  are  not  "  well  born  "  are  despised 
by  those  who  are ;  l  and  the  influence  of  the  latter 
in  determining  the  standard  of  social,  or  rather  of 
human,  worth — a  standard  which  reacts  quickly 
and  decisively  on  character — is,  of  course,  over- 
whelmingly strong.  The  typical  German  officer— 
the  officer  whose  position  and  influence  dominate 
the  military  caste  and  give  it  its  prevailing  tone- 
still  belongs  to  a  social  stratum  which  feels  itself 
at  liberty  to  look  down  on  all  the  strata  below  it ; 
and  that  being  so,  one  cannot  wonder  if  the  average 
German  officer,  whether  "  well  born  "  or  bourgeois, 
tends  to  regard  the  common  soldiers,  the  majority 
of  whom  are  drawn  from  the  lowest  social  strata, 
as  belonging  to  an  entirely  different  order  of  beings 
from  himself.  The  soldiers  of  the  German  army 

1  See  Life  in  a  Crack  Cavalry  Regiment,  by  Baron  von 
Schlicht  (Count  von  Baudessin),  passim. 


A   DOCILE   ARMY  49 

are  the  mechanical  instruments  of  the  officer's 
will;  marionettes  who  move  in  response  to  the 
strings  which  he  manipulates;  huddled  masses  to 
be  driven  to  battle,  like  sheep  to  the  shambles,  at 
the  point  of  his  sword  or  the  muzzle  of  his  revolver ; 
"  cannon-fodder  "  to  be  used  up  by  him,  if  need 
be,  with  reckless  prodigality;  anything,  in  fine, 
except  his  fellow-men.  Of  the  comradeship  be- 
tween officers  and  men  which  is  so  marked  a  feature 
in  the  French  army  and  is  so  stimulating  an  in- 
fluence on  the  battlefield,  there  is  not  a  trace.  Nor 
is  there  that  feeling  of  brotherhood  in  a  sacred 
cause  which  unites  all  ranks  in  the  Russian  army. 
Nor  that  spirit  of  mutual  devotion  which  lifts  the 
relations  between  officers  and  men  in  our  army 
high  above  the  level  of  ordinary  discipline.  An 
English  physician  who  has  visited  many  hospitals 
for  the  wounded  says  that  "  while  a  French  officer 
will  refuse  to  be  treated  in  a  room  apart  from  his 
men,  you  cannot  inflict  a  greater  punishment  on 
a  German  officer  than  to  place  him  in  a  ward  with 
his  wounded." 

Men  who  instinctively  adopt  this  anti-human 
attitude  towards  those  among  their  fellow-men  with 
whom  they  are  in  daily  contact  can  scarcely  be 
expected  to  bear  themselves  with  courtesy  and 
humanity  towards  the  world  at  large.  Ultra-docility 
on  the  part  of  the  many  tends  to  generate  inordinate 
self-esteem  on  the  part  of  the  dogmatic  few.  Taken 
seriously  by  the  men  who  obey  and  defer  to  him, 
men  whose  well-being  he  can  make  or  mar,  the 
officer  is  sorely  tempted  to  take  himself  seriously, 
and  to  this  temptation  he  too  often  succumbs. 
But  the  man  who  takes  himself  quite  seriously. 


50          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

the  man  who  has  settled  down  complacently  into 
a  high  estimate  of  his  own  value  and  importance, 
will  almost  certainly  try  to  impress  on  others  the 
favourable  opinion  which  he  has  formed  of  him- 
self. Even  in  ecclesiastical  and  scholastic  circles 
those  who  are  in  authority  are  sometimes  attacked 
by  the  microbe  of  pomposity.  The  military  equiva- 
lent of  pomposity  is  swagger.  The  German  officer 
swaggers  through  life,  exacting  the  extreme  of 
deference,  which  seems  to  be  regulated  by  a 
meticulous  ritual,1  from  his  subordinates,  and 
expecting  civilians  of  all  ranks  to  give  way  to  him. 
Captain  Giintz  in  Jena  or  Sedan  complains  of  the 
officer's  "  hidebound  narrow-mindedness,  too  often 
degenerating  into  overweening  self-conceit."  No 
doubt  in  some  cases  the  swagger  of  the  officer  is 

1  One  of  the  characters  in  Jena  or  Sedan — a  smart 
artilleryman,  "  the  best  soldier  in  the  whole  battery  " — 
was  sent  to  prison  for  five  months  for  failing  to  straighten 
his  knees  when  addressing  an  officer.  He  had  done  a  piece 
of  good  work  in  a  certain  emergency,  and  ran  breathless  to 
tell  his  officer  of  it,  expecting  a  word  of  recognition.  But 
instead  of  hearing  a  word  of  recognition,  "  he  heard  the 
sharp  high  voice  of  Senior-Lieutenant  Brettschneider. 

' '  Please  stand  in  a  more  respectful  attitude,  Bombardier 
Vogt,  when  you  have  something  to  say  to  me/  the  voice 
snapped  out. 

"  Vogt  pulled  himself  up  and  repeated  his  announce- 
ment. 

"  But  now  the  Senior-Lieutenant  began  to  correct  him 
and  find  fault  with  him,  he  was  to  put  his  right  shoulder 
higher,  his  cap  was  not  straight,  he  must  place  the  tip  of 
his  little  finger  on  his  trouser  seam,  and  put  his  feet  wider 
apart. 

"  '  Straighten  your  knees,'  commanded  he  at  last. 

"  Vogt  felt  how  his  legs  were  trembling.  He  might  have 
been  able  to  obey,  but  he  was  now  at  the  end  of  his  patience 
...  he  would  not  obey  this  idiot  at  any  price."  And  so 
he  was  placed  under  arrest,  court-martialled,  and  sent  to 
prison. 


A  DOCILE   ARMY  51 

the  harmless  swagger  of  exuberant  youth.  More 
often  it  is  the  swagger  of  arrogance;  and  when 
arrogance,  or  aggressive  egoism,  has  become  the 
dominant  characteristic  of  what  is  at  once  the 
highest  caste  in  the  army  and  the  highest  class  in 
society,  we  naturally  begin  to  wonder  how  far  the 
malady  will  spread  and  what  forms  it  will  take. 

This  speculation  widens  the  field  of  our  inquiry. 
We  have  seen  that  the  ultra-docility  of  the  German 
people  has  divided  the  army  into  two  great  sec- 
tions, between  which  yawns  an  unfathomable 
abyss, — a  serf -like  rank-and-file,  and  an  arrogant, 
overbearing  caste  of  officers.  To  yield  mechanical 
obedience  is  the  function  of  the  former.  To  ad- 
minister coercive  discipline  is  the  function  of  the 
latter.  What  effect  this  state  of  things  might  be 
expected  to  have  on  the  moral  of  the  army  and  the 
morals  and  manners  of  the  officers  and  men  is  a 
question  which  I  reserve  for  future  consideration; 
my  more  immediate  concern  is  to  ask  how  the 
violent  antithesis,  within  the  limits  of  the  army — 
the  great  school  of  the  nation — of  dogmatism  to 
docility,  of  arrogance  to  servility,  of  brutal  severity 
to  cringing  fear,  is  likely  to  affect  the  government 
of  the  country  and  the  social  and  political  life  of 
the  people. 


CHAPTER  III 

A   DOCILE  PEOPLE 

IT  was  because  the  German  people  in  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  were  obedient  to 
the  verge  of  slavishness,  it  was  because  the  German 
princes  in  general  and  the  King  of  Prussia  in  par- 
ticular were  irresponsible  autocrats,  that  first  the 
Prussian  and  then  the  Prusso-German  army  ac- 
quired the  features  which  are  to-day  distinctive  of 
the  latter.  The  iron  discipline  of  Frederic  the 
Great's  army  was  but  an  exaggeration  of  the  iron 
discipline  to  which  a  strong  king  was  able  to  sub- 
ject his  people.  Under  the  absolute  rulers  who 
then  sat  on  the  Prussian  throne,  the  civil  adminis- 
tration of  the  country  was  carried  on  by  a  hierarchy 
of  officials  who  were  controlled  by  the  king  through 
his  chancellor.  The  higher  grades  of  the  bureau- 
cracy were  recruited  from  the  Junker  class,  and 
many  of  the  officials  were  ex-army  officers.  In  the 
lower  grades  places  were  found  for  non-commis- 
sioned officers  on  their  retirement.  Authority 
descended  from  the  crown,  and  had  no  other  source. 
The  ministers  of  the  crown  were  responsible  to  the 
king,  and  to  him  alone.  The  "  State,"  incarnate 
in  the  reigning  family,  was  everything.  The  people 
counted  for  nothing.  There  was  no  national 
assembly.  Political  opinion  was  non-existent.  The 

52 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  53 

"  will  of  the  people  "  was  a  phrase  which  had  no 
meaning.  The  function  of  the  king  was  to  protect 
and  govern  his  people.  The  function  of  the  people 
was  to  pay  taxes,  serve  in  the  army,  and  obey 
orders. 

On  the  fatal  day  of  Jena  and  Auerstadt  this 
system  crumbled  to  pieces.  Prussia  lay  prostrate 
at  the  feet  of  the  conqueror;  and  the  officials  who 
had  drilled  and  disciplined  the  people  were  as  help- 
less in  the  face  of  the  catastrophe  as  the  officers 
who  had  drilled  and  disciplined  the  army.  The 
Junkers  had  been  tried  in  the  balance  and  found 
wanting.  The  men  who  resuscitated  Prussia  and 
delivered  Germany  from  bondage  to  Napoleon 
were  all  non-Prussians.  Stein  was  a  Nassauer. 
Hardenberg  and  Scharnhorst  were  Hanoverians. 
Fichte  was  a  Saxon  of  Swedish  descent.  The  war 
of  liberation  was  a  national  uprising,  for  which 
the  policy  and  administrative  work  of  Stein,  Har- 
denberg, and  Scharnhorst,  and  the  impassioned 
addresses  of  Fichte  had  prepared  the  way.  A 
short-service  national  army  had  taken  the  place  of 
the  long-service  professional  army  which  had  failed 
so  disastrously  in  1806.  It  was  not  to  absolutism 
or  militarism  that  Prussia  owed  its  deliverance,  but 
to  the  spontaneous  patriotism  of  a  newly  awakened 
people. 

How  were  the  people  rewarded  for  their  self- 
devotion?  "During  the  war/'  says  Mr.  W.  H. 
Dawson,  "  the  king  solemnly  promised  the  nation, 
in  recognition  of  its  unparalleled  sacrifices,  direct 
participation  in  State  affairs;  it  was  bidden  to 
keep  before  its  eyes  the  pledge  of  freedom  at  home 
as  well  as  the  hope  of  release  from  a  foreign  yoke." 


54          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

That  promise  was  not  kept.  It  has  not  been  kept. 
And  if  the  Hohenzollerns  and  Junkers  can  have 
their  way,  it  never  will  be  kept.  With  a  perfidia 
plus  quam  Prussica,  Frederic  William  III,  who  had 
played  an  ignoble  part  in  the  hour  of  disaster, 
broke  faith  with  his  people  when  the  crisis  was 
over,  withholding  the  constitution  which  he  had 
promised  them,  and  persecuting  the  high-minded 
"  Liberals  "  who  had  done  so  much  to  inspire  the 
nation  in  the  day  of  its  weakness  and  humiliation; 
and  all  his  successors  on  the  throne  have  made 
themselves  partners  with  him  in  his  dishonour.1 

Since  the  downfall  of  Prussia  in  1806  two  great 
changes  have  taken  place.  In  the  first  place,  a 
short-service  citizen  army  has  permanently  taken 
the  place  of  the  long-service  professional  army  of 
the  eighteenth  century.  In  the  second  place, 
Prussia,  still  absolutist  and  unreformed,  preserving 
her  national  identity  and  refusing  to  merge  her 
life  in  that  of  Germany,  has  forcibly  unified  the 
German  states  and  imposed  her  will  and  stamped 
her  character  on  the  whole  German  world.  Had 
Frederic  William  III  kept  faith  with  his  people, 
the  cause  of  freedom  would  have  had  as  little  to 
fear  from  the  citizen  army  of  Prussia  as  it  has 
to-day  from  the  citizen  militia  of  Switzerland. 
But  under  the  absolutist  regime  which  recrudesced 

1  In  1849,  under  the  pressure  of  the  revolutionary 
movement  of  1848,  Frederic  William  IV  gave  Prussia  a 
constitution.  But  he  would  have  annulled  it  had  he 
dared  to  do  so ;  and  he  left  behind  him  a  sealed  document 
in  which  his  successors  were  solemnly  adjured  to  annul  it. 
From  1862  to  1866  William  I,  acting  on  the  advice  of 
Bismarck,  violated  the  constitution  by  governing  without 
a  budget.  Since  then  the  machinery  of  government  has 
been  captured  by  the  anti-constitutionalists. 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  55 

after  the  Napoleonic  wars,  and  even  outlived,  in 
spirit  if  not  in  outward  form,  the  revolution  of 
1848,  the  institution  of  a  citizen  army  could  scarcely 
fail  to  perpetuate  that  regime,  to  fasten  more  firmly 
than  ever  the  yoke  of  feudal  despotism  on  the  neck 
of  the  people.  For  of  the  millions  who  passed 
through  the  army  and  were  subjected  for  two  years 
to  its  severe  and  rigid  discipline,  many — perhaps  a 
large  majority — would  carry  back  to  civil  life  the 
habit  of  mechanical  obedience  which  they  had 
acquired  on  the  drill-ground;  and  the  temptation 
to  mould  this  plastic  clay  to  its  will,  to  hem  in  with 
commands  and  prohibitions  the  daily  life  of  the 
people,  would  be  one  which  the  autocratic  "  State," 
with  its  trained  and  organized  bureaucracy,  would 
find  it  hard  to  resist.  As,  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
the  iron  discipline  of  the  army  did  but  reflect  the 
iron  discipline  to  which  the  State  subjected  the 
people,  so  at  the  present  day  the  military  life  of 
the  citizen  must  needs  react  on  his  civil  life,  and 
the  submissiveness  which  he  learns  in  the  army 
must  needs  predispose  him  to  defer  to  officialdom, 
whatever  form  it  may  assume,  and  to  look  to 
authority  for  direction  and  supervision  even  in 
"  the  trivial  round  "  and  "  the  common  task." 

What  is  true  of  Prussia  is  largely  true,  and  is 
becoming  increasingly  true,  of  modern  Germany. 
In  Germany,  as  in  Prussia,  from  the  army  to  the 
nation  there  is  but  a  single  step.  The  Germans 
themselves  have  a  saying,  which  proves  how 
thoroughly  they  are  now  Prussianized,  that  such 
and  such  a  country  possesses  an  army,  but  that 
Germany  is  an  army  which  possesses  a  country. 
They  have  another  saying  that  the  army  made 


56          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

Prussia  and  that  Prussia  made  Germany.  They 
have  yet  another  saying  that  the  army  is  the 
nation  and  the  nation  is  the  army.  These  sayings 
point  to  a  fact  of  vital  importance,  namely,  that 
beyond  all  other  countries  Germany  is  military, 
in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word, — military  in  that 
its  slavishly  obedient  people  are  pre-eminently 
amenable  to  the  discipline  of  drill,  military  in  that 
its  ruling  classes  are  all  drill-sergeants  at  heart. 
Other  nations  may  be  as  warlike  in  temperament 
as  Germany ;  but  in  no  other  nation  has  the  iron  of 
military  discipline  entered  into  the  inmost  soul  of  the 
people ;  in  no  other  nation  is  the  king,  or  emperor,  or 
whatever  his  title  may  be,  primarily  the  head  of 
an  army,  and  only  secondarily  the  ruler  of  a  people. 
How  does  the  "  State,"  which  is  another  name 
for  the  Crown  and  the  royal  camarilla,  contrive  to 
control  and  discipline  its  subjects?  Let  us  first 
study  the  political  organization  of  Germany.  In 
1849  tne  ghost  of  a  constitution  was  given  to 
Prussia.  In  1871  the  ghost  of  a  constitution  was 
given  to  united  Germany.  In  neither  case  has 
the  ghost  materialized ;  and  it  seems  to  be  the  fixed 
purpose  of  the  Government  that  it  never  shall. 
Germany  is  a  federation  of  twenty-five  states, 
which  vary  greatly  in  size  and  population.  Nearly 
two-thirds  of  the  area  of  the  country  and  more 
than  three-fifths  of  the  inhabitants  belong  to 
Prussia.  Under  the  German  constitution  there 
are  two  legislative  assemblies — the  Reichstag  or 
Imperial  Diet,  and  the  Bundesrat  or  Federal 
Council.  The  members  of  the  Reichstag  are  elected 
by  universal  suffrage  for  a  term  of  five  years; 
voting  is  by  ballot;  and  there  is  approximately 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  57 

one  member  for  every  170,000  inhabitants.  This 
sounds  very  democratic,  and  has  led  Professor 
Karl  Lamprecht  to  say  that  the  Germans  are  the 
freest  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  In  point  of 
fact  the  Reichstag  is  nothing  better  than  a  national 
debating  society.  The  Crown  and  the  Bundesrat 
between  them  deprive  it  of  all  effective  power. 

All  the  imperial  ministers  are  directly  responsible 
to  the  Reichskanzler,  or  Chancellor,  who  is  also  the 
Prussian  plenipotentiary  to  the  Bundesrat  and 
president  of  the  assembly;  and  the  Chancellor  is 
responsible  to  the  Emperor,  not  to  the  Legislative 
Houses.  As  regards  its  functions,  the  empire  has 
supreme  and  independent  control  in  matters  re- 
lating to  the  army  and  navy,  to  the  imperial  finances, 
to  German  commerce,  to  posts  and  telegraphs 
(except  in  Bavaria  and  Wuertemberg)  and  to  rail- 
ways so  far  as  these  affect  the  common  defence 
of  the  country.  "  The  legislative  power  of  the 
country  also  takes  precedence  of  that  of  the 
separate  states  in  the  regulation  of  matters  affect- 
ing freedom  of  migration,  domicile,  settlement  and 
the  rights  of  German  subjects  generally,  as  well  as 
in  all  that  relates  to  banking,  patents,  protection 
of  intellectual  property,  navigation  of  rivers  and 
canals,  civil  and  criminal  legislation,  judicial  pro- 
cedure, sanitary  police,  and  control  of  the  press 
and  of  associations.  The  executive  power  is  in  the 
Emperor's  hands.  He  represents  the  empire  inter- 
nationally, and  can  declare  war,  if  defensive  (and 
what  war  is  not  defensive?)  and  make  peace,  as 
well  as  enter  into  treaties  with  other  nations;  he 
also  appoints  and  receives  ambassadors."  1 

1  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  gth  Ed.,  Vol.  XI,  p.  817. 


58          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

The  Bundesrat,  the  members  of  which  are  nomi- 
nated by  the  various  states,  is  a  supreme  adminis- 
trative and  consultative  council.  Of  its  fifty-eight 
members  only  seventeen  are  Prussian;  but  the 
influence  of  Prussia  in  the  council  is  much  greater 
than  these  figures  suggest.  The  Chancellor,  who 
is  President  of  the  Bundesrat,  is  a  Prussian,  the 
nominee  of  the  King  of  Prussia  qua  German  Em- 
peror, the  head  of  the  Imperial  Government,  and 
usually  also  the  head  of  the  Prussian  ministry. 
The  chairman  of  each  of  the  standing  committees 
(with  one  exception)  must  by  law  be  one  of  the 
Prussian  members.  Above  all,  the  Prussian  group 
has  the  right  of  vetoing  any  proposed  change  in 
laws  or  taxation,  however  great  may  be  the  majority 
in  its  favour  in  the  Reichstag,  as  well  as  in  the 
Bundesrat.  "  Thus  it  is  plain,"  says  Professor 
Ramsay  Muir,  "  that  the  Bundesrat,  while  nominally 
a  means  for  maintaining  the  rights  of  the  separate 
states,  is  really  a  very  ingenious  device  for  securing 
the  control  of  the  King  of  Prussia  and  his  Govern- 
ment over  the  whole  of  Germany." 

Sitting  as  it  does  in  secret,  the  Bundesrat  is  not 
so  much  in  the  eye  of  the  people  as  the  Reichstag ; 
but  its  powers  are  far  wider  and  far  more  real. 
The  relation  between  the  two  Houses  is  set  forth 
by  Dr.  Friedrich  Naumann,  a  prominent  member 
of  the  Reichstag,  in  the  following  passage  :  *  "  The 
German  Empire  has  two  political  forces — the  Bun- 
desrat and  the  Reichstag — but  of  those  forces 
the  one  is  infinitely  stronger  than  the  other,  for 
the  Bundesrat  can  dissolve  the  Reichstag,  but  the 
Reichstag  cannot  dissolve  the  Bundesrat.  The 

1  Quoted  by  Dr.  Sarolea  in  The  Anglo-German  Problem. 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  59 

Bundesrat  can  play  catchball  with  the  Reichstag. 
Somewhere  in  their  palace  their  delegates  sit 
together  in  secret  and  throw  our  resolutions  into 
the  waste-paper  basket.  But  they  demand  of  us 
that  we  shall  accept  their  proposals.  If  the 
Reichstag  does  not  do  what  the  Bundesrat  de- 
mands, there  comes  a  smash.  There  is  an  appeal 
to  national  feeling,  and  the  sinners  must  do 
penance.  But  when  the  Bundesrat  does  not  do 
what  the  majority  of  the  Reichstag  has  resolved, 
then  nothing  happens — absolutely  nothing  !  Such 
is  the  condition  of  things  which  we  in  Germany  call 
'  Parliamentary  Government/  .  .  . 

"  Poor  honest  Reichstag !  I  have  pity  upon 
thee,  although  I  myself  belong  to  thee.  Ministers 
are  forced  upon  thee,  and  thou  canst  say  nothing 
against  it  !  When  on  a  particular  day  a  Cabinet 
Secretary  or  an  Imperial  Chancellor  falls  into  dis- 
favour, the  fact  is  hardly  mentioned  to  us.  The 
Reichstag  is  informed  of  it  through  the  newspapers. 
.  .  .  Poor  honest  Reichstag  !  what  principles  or 
measures  of  contemporary  German  politics  really 
have  originated  from  thee?  Every  essential  law 
has  emanated  from  the  Federal  Government, 
whether  those  laws  have  been  good  or  bad.  Cus- 
toms laws,  insurance  laws,  Liberal  politics,  increase 
of  the  navy,  finance  politics — all  those  measures 
came  into  being  after  the  Silent  Chamber  of  the 
Bundesrat  had  taken  them  in  hand.  The  Reich- 
stag has  the  right  of  initiative  just  as  much  as  the 
Federal  Government,  but  it  lies  in  its  composition 
that  it  can  do  nothing  with  this  right.  .  .  .  Bis- 
marck is  still  laughing  in  his  grave  for  having 
combined  it  all  so  ingeniously.  No  achievement  of 


60  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

his  reveals  his  statecraft  to  better  advantage  than 
his  disposition  of  the  Bundesrat  and  the  Reich- 
stag, for  those  dispositions  are  the  greatest  obstacle 
to  parliamentary  government  in  Germany.  He 
granted  popular  rights,  but  he  took  every  pre- 
caution that  the  popular  will  should  not  be  carried 
out.  He  created  an  indissoluble  secret  college  and 
a  dissoluble  public  parliament.  He  knew  perfectly 
well  which  of  the  two  would  prove  the  stronger,  and 
we  experience  every  day  how  completely  he  has 
tied  the  democracy  while  seeming  to  favour  it." 

What  power  does  the  Reichstag  possess  ?  Chiefly 
that  of  debating  and  ventilating  grievances.  It  is 
true  that  its  approval  is  necessary  for  all  new  laws. 
"  But  in  practice,"  says  Professor  Ramsay  Muir, 
"  new  laws  of  importance  are  always  proposed  by  the 
Government,  which  usually  gets  them  through  by 
making  bargains  with  some  of  the  numerous  party 
groups  into  which  the  Reichstag  is  divided.  If  it 
fails  to  do  this,  the  Government  can  at  any  time 
dissolve  the  Reichstag  and  get  a  new  one  elected, 
which  has  nearly  always  proved  to  be  more  amen- 
able— especially  if  the  electoral  Press  campaign 
has  been  managed  with  the  skill  usually  displayed 
by  the  German  Government.  The  Reichstag  also 
has  in  theory  control  over  taxation.  But  as  most 
of  the  revenue  laws  are  permanent,  and  cannot  be 
altered  without  the  consent  of  the  Emperor,  and 
as  most  of  the  items  of  expenditure  (above  all  that 
of  the  army)  are  practically  fixed  and  must  be  met, 
the  control  of  the  Reichstag  over  finance  is  really 
very  ineffective." 

Such  is  "  Constitutional  Government,"  as  the 
phrase  is  understood  in  Germany.  All  the  reality 


A   DOCILE   PEOPLE  61 

of  power  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Emperor  and  of  an 
"  indissoluble  Secret  College "  nominated  by  the 
Emperor — as  King  of  Prussia — and  the  rest  of  the 
German  princes.  This  college  is  under  the  control 
of  Prussia,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  is  politically  the 
most  reactionary  of  all  the  German  States.  If 
Constitutional  Government  were  anything  but  a 
sham,  the  "dissoluble  public  parliament "  —the 
only  branch  of  the  government  which  pretends  to 
be  popular — would  have  at  least  some  measure 
of  political  power.  In  point  of  fact  it  has  none. 
Nor  will  it  have  any  until  the  ministers  of  the 
Crown  are  responsible  to  it  as  well  as  to  the  Em- 
peror. In  the  early  part  of  last  year  (1914)  the 
Imperial  Chancellor  told  the  members  of  the 
Reichstag  that  he  regarded  an  adverse  vote  passed 
by  their  assembly  as  merely  the  expression  of  a 
difference  of  opinion  between  them  and  him. 
Bismarck  is  said  to  have  called  one  of  his  dogs 
"  Reichstag."  His  estimate  of  the  power  and  im- 
portance of  the  assembly  which  he  called  into 
being  seems  to  be  shared  by  the  latest  of  his 
successors. 

From  Germany  let  us  return  to  Prussia.  In 
doing  so  we  shall  leave  a  delusive  twilight  behind 
us,  and  plunge  at  a  single  step  into  mediaeval  dark- 
ness. In  Prussia,  as  in  Germany,  there  are  two 
"  Houses  of  Parliament," — a  House  of  Lords, 
partly  hereditary  and  partly  nominated  by  the 
King,  and  an  elected  assembly  called  the  Landtag. 
Voting  for  the  Landtag  is  public,  not  (as.  for  the 
Reichstag)  by  ballot.  It  is  also  indirect.  In  each 
electoral  district  the  voters  are  divided,  according 


62          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

to  the  amount  that  they  pay  in  taxes,  into  three 
classes,  which  have  equal  voting  power.  If  a  par- 
ticular district  pays  6000  marks  in  taxes,  each  of 
the  three  subdivisions  pays  2000  marks.  If  in  the 
district  there  was  one  man  who  paid  2000  marks, 
he  would  form  a  class  by  himself.  If  there  were 
twenty  men  who  paid  100  marks  each,  they  would 
form  another  class.  All  the  rest  of  the  voters 
would  belong  to  the  third  class.  Each  of  the 
classes  chooses  the  same  number  of  electors  (as 
distinguished  from  mere  voters) ;  and  the  electors 
choose  the  members  of  the  Landtag.  Dr.  Sarolea 
tells  us  that  in  a  certain  electoral  district  in  Berlin 
there  is  a  wealthy  family  called  Botzow.  One 
Mr.  Botzow  forms  the  first  class  by  himself. 
Another  Mr.  Botzow  forms  the  second  class  by 
himself.  The  remaining  voters,  571  in  all,  belong 
to  the  third  class.  In  the  election  for  the  Landtag 
in  1903,  out  of  about  7,700,000  voters  239,000  be- 
longed to  the  first  class  in  their  respective  districts, 
857,000  to  the  second  class,  and  6,600,000  to  the 
third  class.  In  other  words,  a  vote  in  the  first 
class  is  worth  nearly  twenty-eight  votes  in  the 
third  class.  As  the  voting  is  public,  and  as  all 
power  is  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a  minority 
of  landlords  and  plutocrats  who  can  bring  both 
administrative  and  economic  pressure  to  bear  on 
their  political  opponents,  the  voters  who  belong  to 
the  "  Opposition  "  are  naturally  reluctant  to  vote 
according  to  their  convictions.  But  even  if  they 
did,  they  would  not,  under  the  three-class  system, 
effect  much.  In  a  recent  general  election  the 
Socialists,  who  had  an  actual  majority  of  the  voters 
in  the  kingdom,  returned  seven  members  only 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  63 

out  of  the  400  or  so  who  constitute  the  Landtag. 
These  figures  need  no  comment.  So  scandalous  is 
the  existing  electoral  law  that  its  repeal  has  been 
repeatedly  promised  by  Prussian  statesmen  and 
even  in  speeches  from  the  throne.  But  the  influence 
of  the  Junkers  of  Eastern  Prussia  and  of  the  capital- 
ists of  the  Rhineland  and  Silesia  is  too  strong  to 
allow  these  promises  to  be  kept.  The  Junkers 
and  the  capitalists  may  not  see  eye  to  eye  on  all 
questions;  but  it  is  to  the  interest  of  both  parties 
that  the  "  lower  orders  "  should  be  ruled  with  a 
rod  of  iron. 

With  both  the  Legislative  Houses  pledged  to 
support  despotic  government  and  excessive  cen- 
tralization, "it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at/'  says 
Dr.  Sarolea,  "  that  the  influence  of  reaction  should 
make  itself  felt  in  every  department  of  public  life. 
The  reality  of  local  self-government  in  Prussia 
exists  only  in  the  big  municipalities.  The  ordinary 
local  government  authorities,  who  possess  all  the 
substance  of  political  power — the  Governor  or 
Over-president,  the  Landrat,  and  the  police — are 
the  direct  representatives  of  the  Central  Govern- 
ment, and  through  them  the  Prussian  Government 
make  their  power  felt  in  every  village.  Nor  must 
we  forget  that  the  higher  administrative  authorities 
almost  exclusively  belong  to  the  nobility,  and  they 
defend  the  interests  of  their  caste  all  the  more 
thoroughly  because  they  are  invested  with  powers 
which  far  exceed  the  powers  of  any  local  govern- 
ment in  the  United  Kingdom." 

The  aim  of  the  Prussian  Government  is  to  drill 
and  discipline  the  people  till  they  become  as  wax 
in  its  hands.  With  this  end  in  view  it  does  not 


64          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

trust  to  direct  pressure  only.  Besides  controlling 
the  legislature  and  all  the  administrative  depart- 
ments, it  also  controls  the  judiciary,  the  Univer- 
sities, the  schools,  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  the 
Press. 

'  The  judiciary,"  says  Dr.  Sarolea,  "  is  for  all 
practical  purposes  a  branch  of  the  Civil  Service. 
"Safe  men"— men  who  support  the  existing 
political  regime — are  appointed  as  judges.  Dis- 
tinction at  the  Bar  and  legal  learning  and  acumen 
are  matters  of  minor  importance. 

University  professors  are  also  appointed  by  the 
Government;  and  here,  too,  "safe  men"  are  in 
request.1  "In  no  country,"  says  Professor  J.  H. 
Morgan,  "  is  the  control  of  the  Government  over 
the  Universities  so  strong ;  nowhere  is  it  so  vigilant. 
Political  favour  may  make  or  mar  an  academic 
career;  the  complaisant  professor  is  decorated,  the 
contumacious  is  cashiered."  2  The  consequence  is 
that  the  Universities,  which  still  exercise  great 
influence,  even  in  the  sphere  of  political  thought, 
have  become  strongholds  of  reaction. 

The  schools,  of  all  grades,  are  under  the  control 

1  Mr.  Dawson  tells  of  a  Professor  of  Jurisprudence  at 
Breslau,  who  was  denounced  in  a  Conservative    newspaper 
for  having  said  in  the  course  of  a  lecture  that  "  he  would 
pass   over  the  doctrine  of  monarchy  by   God's  grace  as 
being  a  non- juristic  question,"  and  who  was  then  warned 
by  the  Government  that  his  services  might  no  longer  be 
required ;     and   of   a    political    pamphleteer   who,    having 
championed  the  Government's  repressive  treatment  of  the 
Poles,  was  made  a  Professor  of  Berlin  University,  against 
the  protest  of  his  own  faculty  and  over  the  heads  of  the 
University  authorities. 

2  Or,  if  he  is  not  cashiered,  a  rival  professor  is  appointed 
by  the  Government,  who  gradually  robs  him  of  his  pupils, 
with  the  result  that  he  is  ultimately  starved  into  either 
submission  or  resignation. 


A   DOCILE   PEOPLE  65 

of  the  Government ;  and  in  them  a  narrow  patriotism 
which  glorifies  the  existing  regime  and  centres  in 
the  cult  of  the  House  of  Hohenzollern  is  assiduously 
taught.  "  By  means  of  regulation,  instruction  and 
apologetic  justification,"  says  a  writer  in  the  Neue 
Rundschau,  quoted  by  Mr.  Dawson,  "  patriotism  is 
to-day  taught  by  zealots  like  a  common  school 
lesson  with  a  merciless  rigid  catechism.  Love  to 
the  fatherland  is  made  mechanical,  it  is  drilled 
into  pupils  like  a  dead,  disbelieved  religion,  and 
the  few  pure  heroisms  of  the  past  are  misused  in  the 
service  of  one-sided  politics,  or  even  of  dynastic 
purposes." 

In  Prussia,  as  in  other  countries,  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  always  been  subordinate  to  the  State 
and  subject  to  royal  regulation  and  control.  "  The 
king,"  says  Mr.  Dawson,  "  is  the  summus  episcopus, 
the  Church  is  rigidly  governed  by  a  Consistorium 
appointed  by  him,  and  the  clergy  are  regarded  as 
much  State  officers  as  the  administrative  bureau- 
cracy, and  the  same  compliance  and  obedience  are 
expected  of  them."  Can  we  wonder  that  the  late 
Dr.  Ludwig  Bamberger  should  have  spoken  of  the 
Prussian  State  Church  as  "  one  of  the  institutions 
retained  by  the  Prussian  nobility  and  gentry  as 
the  inalienable  appanage  of  their  class,"  or  that 
Dr.  Paul  Rohrbach  should  have  complained  that 
"  in  the  name  of  no  other  Christian  Church  has 
religion  been  so  entirely  subordinated  to  the  service 
of  the  principle  of  authority  in  the  interest  of  the 
ruling  classes  "  ?  So  tightly  does  the  State  hold 
the  reins  of  Church  government  that  the  more 
liberal-minded  clergy  find  their  position  increasingly 
difficult.  Some  of  them,  like  Dr.  Stocker,  formerly 


66          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

Court  Chaplain,  have  been  disgraced  and  driven 
into  retirement.  Others,  like  Dr.  Friedrich  Nau- 
mann  and  Herr  Gustav  Frenson,  have  found  it 
desirable  to  renounce  their  orders  and  take  up 
secular  pursuits. 

When  a  clergy  becomes  a  bureaucracy,  its 
spiritual  influence  begins  to  wane;  and  the  com- 
plete subordination  of  Church  to  State  is  no  doubt 
partly  responsible  for  the  growing  secularization 
of  Protestantism  in  Prussia.  One  result  of  this  is 
that  the  influence  of  the  Church  on  opinion  is  to-day 
far  weaker  than  that  of  the  Press.  But  the  Press, 
too,  is  in  the  grip  of  the  octopus-like  State.  It 
might  be  thought  that  in  some  at  least  of  the  lead- 
ing newspapers  there  would  be  a  free  expression  of 
opinion.  But,  apart  from  two  honourable  excep- 
tions, this  is  not  the  case.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the 
Press  is  either  directly  or  indirectly  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  Government,  which,  besides  having  its 
own  inspired  organs  and  its  own  Press  Bureau  and 
either  the  monopoly  or  the  indirect  control  of  all 
news  agencies,  and  besides  being  in  a  position  to 
starve  provincial  papers  into  submission  by  with- 
holding official  advertisements,  can  at  its  will 
warn  or  even  suspend  offending  journals.  The 
Zukunft,  the  organ  of  Herr  Maximilian  Harden,  is  an 
independent  political  paper.1  So  are  the  Vorwdrts 
and  the  other  organs  of  the  Socialist  party.  The 
former  is  tolerated,  I  imagine,  on  account  of  its 
Pan-German  proclivities.  The  latter  are  constantly 
getting  themselves  into  trouble.  In  no  other 

1  Towards  the  close  of  1915  the  Zukunft  was  suppressed 
till  the  end  of  the  war.  It  is,  I  believe,  now  published  in 
Switzerland. 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  67 

country  in  Europe  is  the  Press  so  much  an  instru- 
ment of  State  despotism  as  in  Prussia.  In  no 
other  country  are  such  phrases  as  "  the  freedom 
of  the  Press  "  or  "  the  force  of  public  opinion  "  so 
entirely  devoid  of  meaning. 

Thus  from  every  conceivable  quarter  the  Prussian 
autocracy  brings  pressure  to  bear  on  the  life  of  the 
average  citizen.     And,  not  content  with  depriving 
him,  directly  or  indirectly,  outwardly  or  inwardly, 
of  political  freedom,  it  does  its  best  to  deprive  him 
of  social  freedom,  of  economic  freedom,  of  domestic 
freedom,    of  freedom   of  thought   and   conscience. 
In  other  words,  besides  being  despotic,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word,   it  is  also  inquisitorial  in  the 
highest    degree.     This    makes    its    despotism    the 
harder  to  bear,  and  the  more  harmful  to  those  who 
have  to  bear  it.     I  have  elsewhere  suggested  that 
the  harm  done  to  character  by  the  loss  of  political 
freedom  varies  directly  with  the  degree  of  inten- 
siveness    with    which    the    people    in    question    is 
governed.     In    Russia    and    China,    for    example, 
though  the  central  government  is  largely,  if  not 
wholly,  despotic,  the  people  are  so  lightly  governed 
by  the  State  that  they  are  actually  freer,  in  the 
more  inward  and  vital  sense  of  the  word,  than  are 
the  citizens  of  some  of  our  Western  democracies. 
In  Prussia  the  people  are  more  heavily  governed 
than  in  any  other  country.     Even  the  minor  details 
of  their   daily  life   are   subjected  to  bureaucratic 
control.     "I   do  not  doubt,"   says   Herr   Schiffer, 
the    National    Liberal    Deputy,    "  that    the    laws, 
decrees,    ordinances    and   regulations    in    currency 
would  fill  whole  libraries.     The  institution  of  the 
police  may  be  excellent  for  our  nation,  but  we  are 


68  THE   NEMESIS    OF   DOCILITY 

in  danger  of  being  suffocated  by  all  the  love  and 
care  bestowed  on  us.  Who  can  be  sure  as  he  lays 
himself  down  to  sleep  at  night  that  he  is  not  trans- 
gressing some  police  regulation  or  other?  From 
the  cradle  to  the  grave,  law,  justice  and  the  police 
accompany  us  at  every  step ;  nay,  they  look  after 
us  both  for  a  few  weeks  before  our  birth  and  a  few 
weeks  after  our  death." l  "  One  of  every  twelve 
persons  now  living  in  Germany,"  says  the  writer 
of  an  instructive  article  in  the  Round  Table,  "  has 
been  convicted  of  some  offence.  This  is  not  that 
the  Germans  are  a  criminal2  or  disorderly  people — 
far  from  it ;  it  is  merely  that  they  are  surrounded 
by  regulations  from  their  first  walk  outside  a 
perambulator,  or  in  one,  to  their  grave."  And 
Mr.  Dawson,  in  his  work,  The  Evolution  of  Modern 
Germany,  says  that  "  control  and  regulation  at 
every  turn  are  the  lot  of  all  Germans,  at  least 
of  all  North  Germans  .  .  .  with  the  result  that 
initiative  is  crippled  and  men  come  to  regard  order 
and  instruction  as  a  necessary  part  of  life." 

It  is  true  that  in  all  civilized  countries  the  sphere 
of  governmental  activity  is  tending  to  widen.  The 
facilities  for  centralization,  and  therefore  for  efficient 
organization,  which  we  owe  to  steam,  electricity, 
and  petrol;  the  various  developments  of  applied 
science;  the  advances  made  in  sanitation  and 
medicine ;  the  increased  attention  given  to  economic 
problems;  the  growing  sense  of  the  intimate  con- 

1  Quoted  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Dawson  in  What  is  Wrong  with 
Germany  ? 

2  The  writer  had  not  studied  the  criminal  statistics  of 
Germany,  or  he  would  have  omitted  the  word  "  criminal." 
The  Germans  are  not  a  "  disorderly  "  people,  but  they  are 
"  criminal  "  in  a  very  high  degree.    See  Chap.  VI.  pp.  142-6. 


A   DOCILE    PEOPLE  69 

nection  between  the  welfare  of  the  individual  and 
the  welfare  of  the  community, — have  combined  in 
recent  years  to  make  government,  both  national 
and  local,  more  paternal  than  it  used  to  be,  and  are 
preparing  our  minds  for  further  progress  in  the 
same  direction.  But  the  more  heavily  a  people 
is  governed,  the  more  essential  it  is  that  it  should 
learn  to  govern  itself.  Otherwise  the  nations 
which  boast  of  their  higher  civilization  may  sink 
at  last  into  the  state  of  helplessness  and  irresponsi- 
bility to  which  the  over-paternal  rule  of  the  Incas 
reduced  the  people  of  Peru.  What  distinguishes 
Germany  in  general  and  Prussia  in  particular  from  all 
other  countries  is  that  in  its  government  the  highest 
known  degree  of  paternalism  is  combined  with  the 
highest  known  degree  of  despotism.  No  other  govern- 
ment is  so  autocratic.  No  other  administration 
is  so  highly  organized  or  so  thoroughly  centralized. 
If  I  have  devoted  a  seemingly  disproportionate 
amount  of  space  to  the  Government  of  Prussia  as 
distinguished  from  that  of  Germany,  my  reason 
for  doing  so  is  that  Prussia  can  no  longer  be  distin- 
guished from  Germany,  which  is  now  either  incor- 
porated in  Prussia  or  in  course  of  being  Prussian- 
ized. The  influence  of  Prussia  as  a  strong  and 
conquering  state  which  led  the  rest  of  Germany  to 
victory  in  1870,  has  grown  steadily  since  that  year, 
and  is  now  all-powerful.  So  is  the  influence  of  the 
empire  on  the  smaller  states,  partly  through  its 
control  of  the  army  and  navy,  of  commerce,  of 
national  finance  and  other  important  matters, 
partly  through  its  position  and  prestige.  And  the 
empire — thanks  to  the  impotence  of  the  Reichstag, 
to  the  power  of  the  Prussianized  Bundesrat,  and  to 


70          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

the  imperial  authority  being  vested  in  the  House  of 
Hohenzollern — is  wholly  dominated  by  Prussia.  It 
is  doubtless  true  that  some  of  the  South  German 
Diets  are  genuinely  popular  assemblies,  and  that 
in  those  assemblies  the  people  are  learning  to 
govern  themselves.  But  so  long  as  local  govern- 
ment in  Prussia  is  mediaeval  in  character,  the  re- 
action of  South  German  liberalism  on  the  political 
life  of  Germany  will  be  but  small.  The  Prussian 
Landtag,  with  its  open  voting  and  its  three-class 
electoral  system,  counts  for  more  in  the  life  of 
Germany  than  the  Imperial  Reichstag,  with  its 
Manhood  Suffrage,  voting  by  ballot,  and  equal 
electoral  districts;  and  it  counts  for  far  more  than 
all  the  other  local  diets  put  together.  For  the 
Landtag,  as  an  instrument  of  State  despotism, 
enables  Prussia  to  retain  and  emphasize  her  charac- 
teristic features  of  militarism,  officialism,  coercive 
discipline,  and  mechanical  obedience;  and  the 
ascendancy  of  Prussia  in  Germany  means  that  the 
German  character  is  gradually  acquiring  those 
features.  Slow,  patient,  resolute,  painstaking, 
methodical,  materialistic,  unimaginative,  the  Prus- 
sian is  making  himself  master  of  the  soul  as  well 
as  the  outward  life  of  the  German  people;  and  the 
Prussian  is  at  heart  a  drill-sergeant — and  a  serf. 

Far  from  resenting  the  inquisitorial  despotism 
of  the  State,  far  from  deploring  their  loss  of  domestic 
freedom,  the  German  people,  with  some  honourable 
exceptions,  are  proud  of  their  chains.  Having  been 
detached  for  centuries  from  the  practical  side  of 
public  life,  they  have  developed  a  capacity  for 
abstract  theorizing  in  which  they  easily  surpass  all 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  71 

other  nations.  Their  theorists  are  as  a  rule 
University  professors. 

Graeculus  esuriens  in  coelum,  jusseris,  ibit. 

Brief  a  German  professor,  and  he  will  speak  to  his 
brief  with  astonishing  learning  and  ingenuity.  "  I 
begin  by  taking,"  said  Frederic  the  Great  in  a 
moment  of  cynical  candour,  "  I  can  always  find 
pedants  to  prove  my  right  afterwards."  Reduced 
by  an  autocratic  State  to  a  condition  of  political 
serfdom,  the  German  people  have  looked  to  their 
professors  to  extricate  them  from  a  situation  which 
they  must  feel  in  their  hearts  to  be  humiliating,  and 
to  restore  their  self-respect.  And  they  have  not 
looked  in  vain.  Accepting  the  omnipotence  of  the 
State  and  the  political  impotence  of  the  average 
citizen  as  facts  which  cannot  be  denied  or  evaded, 
Professor  Treitschke  and  the  school  which  he  has 
founded  have  distilled  from  these  facts  a  theory  of 
the  State  which  proves  conclusively  that  meek, 
unquestioning  obedience  is  the  first  of  civic  duties 
and  the  highest  form  of  patriotism,  and  that 
therefore  all  is  well  in  the  best  of  all  possible 
countries. 

According  to  this  theory,  the  State  is  not  the 
whole  body  politic  acting  through  a  common 
centre,  as  the  human  body  acts  through  the  brain. 
It  is  not  the  organ  of  the  national  mind  and  will 
and  conscience.  It  is  not  what  international  law 
presumes  it  to  be — "  the  external  personality  or 
outward  agency  of  an  independent  community." 
"  The  State,"  says  Treitschke,  "is  in  the  first 
instance  power.  It  is  not  the  totality  of  the  people 
itself,  as  Hegel  assumed.  On  principle  it  does  not 


72  THE   NEMESIS    OF   DOCILITY 

ask  how  the  people  is  disposed  :  it  demands  obedi- 
ence." Where,  then,  does  the  State  come  from, 
and  by  what  right,  other  than  that  of  might,  does 
it  demand  obedience?  If  it  is  not  an  organ  nor 
an  aspect  of  the  people,  if  it  is  not  the  totality  of 
the  people,  if  it  does  not  deign  to  consult  its  sub- 
jects, if  it  merely  demands  their  obedience,  the 
inference  is  plain  that  it  centres  in  the  person  of 
an  absolute  ruler  and  that  the  source  of  its  authority 
is  the  same  as  his.  If  this  is  not  so,  if  the  source 
of  the  State's  authority  is  its  power,  then,  in  the 
event  of  its  being  overthrown  by  a  stronger  power, 
as,  for  example,  by  a  popular  uprising,  it  would 
lose  its  authority  and  even  its  identity,  and  a  new 
State — a  democracy,  perhaps,  or  even  an  ochlocracy 
—would  take  its  place.  A  theory  which  leads 
logically  to  such  a  conclusion  is  one  which  Treitschke 
could  never  have  entertained.  And  we  must  there- 
fore conclude  that  the  State,  as  he  conceives  it, 
owes  its  authority  to  the  absolute  ruler  in  whose 
person  it  centres.  He  has  told  us  that  "  Prussia 
alone  has  still  a  real  monarch  who  is  entirely  in- 
dependent of  any  higher  power/'  By  "  higher 
power  "  he  means,  I  presume,  higher  in  the  order 
of  nature ;  for  even  the  Prussian  king  would  recog- 
nize the  God  of  supernatural  religion — "  the  good 
old  German  God  " — as  his  feudal  superior.  Indeed, 
if  the  sayings  of  the  present  King-Emperor  may  be 
regarded  as  typical,  the  kings  of  Prussia  have 
always  claimed  that  they  rule  by  divine  right,  and 
that  all  authority  emanates  from  them  because 
they  are  "  the  Lord's  Anointed." 

The  State,  then,  for  which  Treitschke  demands 
implicit  obedience,  is  something  above  the  people, 


A   DOCILE    PEOPLE  73 

something  which  has  descended  upon  the  people 
from  a  supernatural  source,  like  the  nimbus  of 
divine  grace  which  is  supposed  to  rest  on  the  head 
of  each  Prussian  king.  In  this  it  resembles  the 
Jewish  Law ;  and,  like  the  Law,  instead  of  summing 
up  and  expressing  the  moral  aims  and  conceptions 
of  the  people  whose  life  it  rules,  it  dominates  their 
morals  from  without  and  arbitrarily  determines 
their  standards  of  right  and  wrong.  For  the  auto- 
cratic State,  autocratic  as  the  king  who  is  its  highest 
symbol,  "  giveth  no  account  of  any  of  its  ways." 
"  The  State  is  power,"  and  the  end  of  the  State  is 
more  power.  With  this  end  before  it,  its  business 
is  to  organize  and  discipline  the  people  so  that  they 
may  become  efficient  instruments  of  its  will.  To 
promote  the  welfare  of  its  subjects,  except  so  far 
as  their  welfare  will  react  on  its  own  (in  the  sense 
of  augmenting  its  power),  is  not  the  reason  of 
its  existence.  If,  by  taking  thought  for  them,  it 
can  increase  their  efficiency  as  instruments  of  its 
own  will,  it  will  take  thought  for  them,  but  not 
otherwise. 

'  The  State  is  power."  What  power  is  we  are 
never  told.  But  it  is  evident,  from  the  general 
tenour  of  Treitschke's  writings  and  the  general 
trend  of  political  thought  in  Germany,  that  the 
ultimate  proof  of  power  is  dominion  over  others. 
It  is  in  order  to  rivet  the  yoke  of  his  own  State 
on  other  States  and  other  peoples  that  the  German 
soldier  becomes  an  automaton  and  the  German 
citizen  surrenders  his  individuality.  And  not  his 
individuality  only,  but  also  his  vision  of  an  ideal. 
'  The  State  is  no  academy  of  arts,"  says  Treitschke ; 
"if  it  neglects  its  power  in  favour  of  the  ideal 


74          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

strivings  of  mankind  it  renounces  its  nature  and 
goes  to  ruin."  Nor  does  it  merely  hold  aloof  from 
the  "  ideal  strivings  of  mankind."  Its  claims  on 
the  devotion  of  its  subjects  are  so  exacting  that  it 
cannot  suffer  any  moral  ideal  to  compete  with 
itself.  Its  own  ascendancy  in  the  councils  of  the 
world  is  the  final  end  of  the  patriotic  citizen's 
aspiration  and  effort.  And  in  the  pursuit  of  this 
end  he  must  throw  all  moral  considerations  to  the 
winds.  For  the  State,  "  in  whose  will  is  his  peace," 
is  supposed  to  live  and  move  and  have  its  being 
"  beyond  good  and  evil."  Between  State  and 
State,  in  this  view  of  things,  there  is  no  moral  or 
even  legal  obligation.  "  International  laws  are 
agreements  which  at  once  become  illusory  in  war 
time."  *  International  treaties  are  binding  only  so 
long  as  it  is  found  convenient  to  respect  them. 
International  morality  is  a  meaningless  phrase. 
Justice  is  the  rule  of  the  stronger.  "  Between 
States  there  is  only  one  principle  that  has  any 
validity — the  right  of  the  stronger."  2  What 
cannot  be  enforced  is  in  no  respect  obligatory. 
The  end — the  State's  advance  in  power — justifies 
any  and  every  means.  What  room  is  there  for  a 
moral  ideal  in  the  heart  of  one  who  has  to  give  the 
best  of  himself  to  so  non-moral  a  master?  And 
will  not  the  loss  of  a  moral  ideal  tend,  sooner  or 
later,  to  demoralize  one's  own  life? 

These  are  questions  which  Treitschke  and  his 
followers  compel  one  to  ask.  But  there  is  another 
question  which  must  take  precedence  even  of 

1  Herr  Karl  Schiffler  in  a  recent  number  of  the  Vossische 
Zeitung. 

2  Professor  Lassen,  in  War  and  the  Ideal  Aim  of  Culture. 


A   DOCILE   PEOPLE  75 

these.  Is  the  State  of  which  Treitschke  dreams 
non-moral  or  immoral?  Is  it  content  to  ignore 
morality,  or  does  it,  in  the  pride  of  its  "  power," 
set  morality  at  open  defiance?  "  It  must  suffice 
us  to  know/'  says  Herr  Karl  Scruffier,  "  that  in 
our  national  dealings  we  have  a  higher  morality, 
namely,  the  ethics  of  force  and  of  national  expan- 
sion. An  action  shall  not  be  justified  morally,  but 
politically."  Herr  Karl  Schiffier  is  not  a  clear 
thinker.  If  the  political  justification  of  an  action 
supersedes  the  moral,  why  does  he  speak  of  the 
ethics  of  force  and  national  expansion  as  a  "  higher 
morality "  ?  Because  he  cannot  help  himself. 
Because  the  inherent  tendencies  of  things  are  too 
strong  for  him.  Because  he  who  thinks  paradoxi- 
cally has  no  choice  but  to  think  confusedly.  The 
truth  is  that  even  in  the  region  "  beyond  good  and 
evil "  moral  considerations  must  needs  obtrude 
themselves  on  our  thought.  There,  as  elsewhere, 
the  human  point  of  view  will  insist  on  taking  pre- 
cedence of  the  political.  In  their  attempt  to  prove 
the  moral  self-sufficiency  of  the  State  (as  they 
conceive  it),  the  Treitschke  school  unwittingly 
place  it  on  trial  at  the  bar  of  morality.  As  to  the 
verdict  in  which  that  trial  will  issue  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  The  indifference  of  the  State  to  moral 
considerations,  when  followed  out  into  its  practical 
consequences,  is  found  to  be  immoral  and  even 
anti-moral  in  the  highest  degree.  For  the  supreme 
end  of  the  State's  existence  reveals  itself  as  supreme 
egoism;  and  subservience  to  what  is  morally  evil — 
to  national  rapacity,  perfidy,  and  inhumanity — - 
becomes  for  the  patriotic  citizen  the  highest  form 
of  moral  good. 


76          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

A  strange  paradox  this.  But  the  genesis  of  the 
paradox  is  even  more  paradoxical.  The  theory  of 
an  autocratic  and  irresponsible  State — dogmatic 
and  domineering  at  home,  high-handed  and  preda- 
tory abroad,  anti-human  in  the  face  of  Humanity, 
a  standing  menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world — has 
been  invented  by  an  ultra-docile  people  in  order 
to  justify  to  itself  its  own  ultra-docility,  in  order 
that  it  may  say  in  its  heart  :  "  He  who  is  good 
enough  to  lord  it  over  me  is  good  enough  to  lord 
it  over  the  world."  It  has  been  said  of  old  that 
"  the  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth."  The  Germans, 
who  are  the  meekest  of  the  meek,  at  any  rate  in 
the  presence  of  authority,  seem  to  have  grown 
impatient  at  the  delay  in  the  fulfilment  of  this 
prophecy,  and  to  have  resolved  to  fulfil  it  for  them- 
selves. For  they  have  evolved  a  theory  of  the 
State  which  justifies  and  even  glorifies  their  meek- 
ness, and  also  makes  due  provision  for  the  forcible 
seizure  of  their  inheritance. 

Let  us  go  back  for  a  moment  from  political 
theory  to  historical  fact. 

Since  the  days  of  Frederic  the  Great  the  Western 
world  has  moved  slowly,  but 

"with  an  ascent  and  progress  in  the  main" 

towards    democracy.1     Prussia    alone    has    stood 
stock  still.     Now,  as  then,  the  king  and  the  Junker 

1  I  mean  by  "  democracy,"  not  the  exploitation  of  the 
"  lower  orders  "  by  selfish  and  unscrupulous  demagogues, 
but  the  government  of  the  people  by  the  people  and  for 
the  people ;  and  I  mean  by  the  people,  not  the  "  lower 
orders  "  only,  but  the  community  as  a  whole. 


A  DOCILE   PEOPLE  77 

oligarchy1  are  the  irresponsible  masters  of  a  serf- 
like  army  and  an  almost  serf-like  people, — an  army 
which  is  ready  to  die  in  millions  at  their  bidding, 
and  a  people  which  bows  down  to  their  despotism 
as  to  the  gracious  rule  of  a  divinely  instituted 
"  State."  If  there  has  been  any  change,  it  has 
been  towards  reaction.  The  Government,  while 
remaining  unswervingly  autocratic,  has  become 
more  and  more  inquisitorial  and  more  and  more 
bureaucratic.  Meanwhile  Prussia,  which  in  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  a  small 
kingdom,  has  either  absorbed  into  herself  or  sub- 
ordinated to  herself  the  whole  of  Germany. 

Will  that  achievement  content  her?  Thanks  to 
the  traditional  docility  and  quasi-tribal  loyalty  of 
her  people,  the  "  will  to  power  "  of  her  rulers  has 
moved  for  many  generations  along  a  path  of  almost 
unbroken  success.  But  success,  unless  it  pro- 
gressively widens  its  sphere,  is  apt  to  pall  on  those 
who  achieve  it.  Alexander  the  Great,  at  the  height 
of  his  glory,  is  said  to  have  sighed  for  new  worlds 
to  conquer.  And  one  may  well  wonder  if  there 
are  any  limits  to  the  ambition  of  the  Prussian 
State. 

1  The  oligarchy,  even  in  Prussia,  is  no  longer  exclusively 
"  Junker."  With  the  growth  of  industrialism  in  the  Rhine- 
land  and  Silesia,  the  lords  of  commerce  and  finance  have 
taken  their  places  by  the  side  of  the  territorial  magnates, 
whom  they  are  beginning  to  rival  in  power  and  influence, 
and  even  in  favour  with  the  crown. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD 

THE  docility  of  the  German  people  is  equalled 
only  by  their  dogmatism.  This  may  sound  like  a 
paradox,  but  it  is  really  the  statement  of  an  obvious 
truth.  Docility  and  dogmatism  are  the  face  and 
obverse  of  the  same  tendency  of  human  nature. 
Each  quality  presupposes  the  other.  If  there  is  a 
docile  majority  in  a  community,  there  must  also 
be  a  dogmatic  minority.  If  there  is  a  dogmatic 
minority,  there  must  also  be  a  docile  majority. 
The  function  of  docility  is  to  bow  down  to  dogma- 
tism, to  take  it  seriously,  to  accept  its  teaching, 
to  do  its  bidding.  The  function  of  dogmatism  is 
to  lord  it  over  docility,  to  impose  itself  on  it,  to 
instruct  it,  to  drill  it.  If  the  minority  ceased  to 
dogmatize,  the  majority  would  necessarily  cease  to 
be  docile.  If  the  majority  ceased  to  be  docile,  the 
minority  would  dogmatize  in  vain. 

Nor  is  it  only  in  the  life  of  a  community  that 
docility  and  dogmatism  call  each  other  into  being. 
They  also  do  so  in  the  life  of  each  individual  man. 
When  I  say  that  the  docility  of  the  Germans  is 
equalled  only  by  their  dogmatism,  I  do  not  merely 
mean  that  in  Germany  the  docile  are  ultra-docile, 
and  the  dogmatic  ultra-dogmatic.  I  also  mean 
that  the  average  German  is  as  dogmatic  as  he  is 

78 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  79 

docile.  That  this  should  be  so  is  but  natural.  The 
docile  pupil,  besides  sitting  at  the  feet  of  his  master, 
instinctively  makes  him  his  model.  His  attitude 
is  imitative  as  well  as  deferential;  or  rather  it  is 
imitative  because  it  is  deferential.  The  docile 
pupil  looks  to  the  dogmatist  to  tell  him  what  he 
ought  to  know  and  what  he  ought  to  do.  He  also 
looks  to  him  to  tell  him  what  he  ought  to  be  and 
how  he  ought  to  bear  himself.  But  if  he  is  to 
imitate  the  dogmatist,  he  must  imitate  him,  first 
and  foremost,  in  being  dogmatic.  When  the  big 
boys  at  our  public  schools  were  brutally  treated  by 
their  masters,  they  treated  the  small  boys  with 
equal  brutality.  It  was  their  way  of  imitating 
those  who  were  set  in  authority  over  them.  They 
did  not  try  to  reproduce  the  more  estimable  qualities 
of  their  masters.  These  were  turned  away  from 
them,  so  to  speak.  The  brutality  with  which 
discipline  was  maintained  was  turned  towards 
them.  Feeling  its  pressure,  and  having  it  always 
before  their  eyes,  they  regarded  it  as  of  the  essence 
of  authority,  and  instinctively  tried  to  imitate  it. 
The  attitude  of  the  dogmatist,  be  he  schoolmaster 
or  army  officer  or  State  official,  towards  those  who 
come  under  his  control,  an  attitude  of  superiority — 
in  power,  in  position,  in  knowledge — is  one  which 
his  victims  naturally  admire  and  envy,  and  which, 
if  they  were  given  the  chance,  they  would  try  to 
reproduce.  And  because  the  dogmatic  role  has 
for  the  docile  the  further  charm  of  novelty,  they 
will  throw  themselves  into  it,  if  they  are  allowed 
to  play  it,  with  remarkable  zest  and  energy.  Set 
a  beggar  on  horseback,  and  he  will  ride  to  the  devil. 
Give  the  docile  pupil  the  chance  of  dogmatizing, 


80          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

and  he  will  outdogmatize  his  master.  If  he  is  in 
a  position  to  lay  down  the  law,  he  will  do  so  with 
complete  assurance.  If  he  is  in  a  position  to 
administer  discipline,  he  will  be  more  than  a  mar- 
tinet. If  he  is  in  a  position  to  bully,  he  will  make 
his  victim  repay  with  compound  interest  what  he 
himself  has  had  to  endure. 

How  readily  the  German  underling  who  is  in- 
vested with  authority  passes  and  repasses  between 
the  extremes  of  docility  and  dogmatism,  of  cringing 
and  bullying,  is  aptly  illustrated  in  the  following 
dialogue  by  the  witty  satirist  who  calls  herself 
"  Elizabeth."  (An  English  artist  called  Ingram  is 
travelling  from  Eastern  Prussia  to  Italy.  Enter 
the  conductor  of  the  train.) 

"  '  You  do  not  change,'  said  the  conductor,  with 
Prussian  determination  that  his  passengers  should 
not,  even  if  they  wanted  to  and  liked  it,  go  astray. 

"  '  No,'  said  Ingram. 

"  '  Not  until  Basel,'  said  the  conductor  mena- 
cingly, almost  as  if  he  wanted  to  pick  a  quarrel. 

"  '  No,'  said  Ingram. 

"  '  At  Basel  you  change,'  said  the  conductor, 
eyeing  him,  ready  to  leap  on  opposition. 

"  '  Yes,'  said  Ingram. 

"  '  You  will  arrive  at  Basel  at  11.40  to-night,' 
said  the  conductor  in  tones  behind  which  hung, 
*  Do  you  hear?  You've  just  got  to.' 

"  '  Yes,'  said  Ingram. 

"  '  At  Basel- 

"  '  Oh,  go  to  hell,'  said  Ingram  suddenly,  violently, 
and  in  his  own  tongue. 

"  The  conductor  immediately  put  his  heels 
together  and  saluted.  From  the  extreme  want  of 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  81 

control  of  the  gentleman's  manner  he  knew  him  at 
once  for  an  officer  of  high  rank  disguised,  for  travel- 
ling purposes,  in  civilian  garments,  and  silently 
and  deferentially  withdrew." 

The  conductor  whom  "  Elizabeth  "  has  immor- 
talized is  typical  of  a  large  and  important  class. 
We  have  seen  that  of  all  countries  Germany  is 
both  the  most  autocratically  and  the  most  heavily 
governed.  Under  an  autocratic  regime,  the  more 
heavily  a  country  is  governed,  the  more  docile  will 
its  people  become — and  the  more  dogmatic.  The 
Russians  and  the  Chinese,  though  duly  submissive 
to  autocratic  authority,  are  neither  over-docile  nor 
over-dogmatic;  for  authority  presses  lightly  on 
them,  and  officialdom  seldom  intrudes  on  their 
daily  life.  As  regards  most  of  the  affairs  of  life 
they  are  self-governing;  and  in  the  atmosphere  of 
self-government  neither  docility  nor  dogmatism 
finds  it  easy  to  thrive.  It  is  otherwise  with  the 
Germans.  Hemmed  in  as  they  are  with  regula- 
tions and  prohibitions,  they  are  in  constant  contact 
with  officialdom ;  and  patterns  of  dogmatic  bearing 
are  ever  before  their  eyes.  On  these  they  insen- 
sibly model  their  own  deportment.  And  as  the 
number  of  officials  in  their  over-governed  country 
is  very  great,  and  as  the  grades  of  them  are  in- 
numerable, the  proportion  of  citizens  who,  as 
servants  of  the  State,  have  to  command  as  well  as 
to  obey,  and  who  are  therefore  licensed  to  dogma- 
tize and  to  swagger,  is  very  large,  and  the  tone  of 
the  whole  community  is  profoundly  affected  by 
their  influence  and  example.  Prince  Biilow,  who 
tells  us  that  Prussia  "  is  still  in  all  essentials  a  State 
of  soldiers  and  officials,"  speaks  elsewhere  of  "  the 


82          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

dogmatic  trait  so  characteristic  of  the  German 
people."  Mr.  Dawson,  speaking  of  the  innumerable 
prohibitions  with  which  the  State  fences  in  the 
German  citizen,  says  that  "  when  the  public 
authority  ceases  to  prohibit,  private  persons  take 
up  the  tale,  and  everybody  finds  his  highest  delight 
in  prohibiting  somebody  else."  And  Mr.  Austin 
Harrison,  who,  like  Mr.  Dawson,  knows  Germany 
intimately,  gives  many  instances  of  the  rudeness 
and  violence  which  Germans  display  in  their  deal- 
ings with  one  another.  ;<  The  wrangling,  quarrel- 
ling, shouting,  fuming,  bickering  that  goes  on  in 
Germany  is,"  he  tells  us,  "  proverbial.  One  cannot 
get  away  from  it."  Anschnautzen  (to  scold  and 
shout  at  a  man)  seems  to  be  a  favourite  verb.  "  It 
is  a  phrase  and  habit  recognized  in  all  classes." 
Mr.  Harrison  holds  the  present  Emperor  responsible 
by  his  bad  example  for  the  aggressive  egoism  of  his 
subjects.  This  is,  I  think,  scarcely  fair  to  a  man 
who  in  any  case  has  to  shoulder  a  heavy  load  of 
responsibility.  The  influence  of  the  Emperor 
counts  for  much  with  his  subjects,  but  not  for 
everything.  The  Prussian  officer  swaggered  and 
bullied,  to  the  envy  and  admiration  of  the  citizens 
whom  he  jostled  and  occasionally  sabred,  long 
before  the  present  Emperor  came  to  the  throne. 
And  so  far  as  the  example  of  the  Emperor  has 
made  for  arrogance  and  rudeness  in  the  rank- 
and-file  of  the  people,  it  has  been  transmitted  to 
them  by  a  whole  hierarchy  of  officers  and  officials. 
The  truth  is  that  the  tendency  of  docility  to  imitate 
and  in  its  way  out-rival  dogmatism  is  deeply  rooted 
in  human  nature.  He  who  is  in  a  position  to  lay 
down  the  law  and  to  demand  submission  and 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  83 

deference,  and  who  enters  into  the  spirit  of  his 
allotted  part,  may  almost  be  said  to  invite  imita- 
tion; and  the  overbearing  temper  and  manners 
which  began  by  being  the  prerogative  of  a  ruling 
caste  will  end  by  permeating  all  social  grades  and 
classes.  How  completely  the  Prussian  oligarchy 
which  calls  itself  "  the  State  "  has  succeeded  in 
dominating  Germany,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
its  own  spirit  of  arrogance  is  gradually  leavening 
the  whole  nation. 

The  dogmatism  that  feeds  on  docility  and  is 
then  imitated  by  the  docile  has  two  main  aspects. 
Excessive  self-assertion,  a  readiness  to  impose 
oneself  (sich  imponieren]  on  others,  is  one  aspect. 
Coupled  with  this  is  the  tendency  to  bully  and 
browbeat  all  who  are  willing  to  submit,  or  who 
must  perforce  submit,  to  such  treatment.  Exces- 
sive self-conceit,  an  inordinately  high  opinion  of 
oneself  and  one's  own  belongings,  is  the  other 
aspect.  Coupled  with  this  is  the  tendency  to 
despise  and  belittle  all  other  persons  and  all  things 
which  are  not  one's  own.  These  two  aspects  have 
much  in  common  and  readily  merge  into  one. 

When  the  dogmatic  spirit  pervades  a  whole 
nation,  one  thing  is  sure  to  happen.  A  strongly 
militant  type  of  patriotism  will  be  generated,  a 
sentiment  compounded  of  three  elements, — of  a 
national  self-esteem  which  knows  no  limits,  of 
a  contempt  for  other  nations  which  also  knows  no 
limits,  and  of  a  readiness  to  translate  that  con- 
tempt into  aggressive  action.  For  foremost  among 
a  man's  belongings  is  his  country;  and  he  who 
makes  a  practice  of  exalting  whatever  is  his  and 


84          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

belittling  whatever  is  not  his,  will  champion  his 
own  country  against  all  others  with  a  zeal  which 
is  nearer  of  kin  to  jealous  self-assertion  than  to  the 
self-surrender  of  disinterested  love. 

In  Germany,  where  the  whole  nation  is  saturated 
with  dogmatism,  patriotism  of  this  aggressive  and 
exclusive  type  may  be  expected  to  flourish;  and 
its  growth  will  be  fostered,  both  directly  and  in- 
directly, by  the  action  of  the  State.  Directly, 
because  the  State  will,  for  purposes  of  its  own, 
teach  patriotism  in  all  the  schools  in  the  land  and 
by  all  the  agencies  under  its  control;  and  because 
it  is  difficult  to  teach  patriotism  formally  and 
systematically  without  exalting  one's  own  country 
at  the  expense  of  others.  Indirectly,  because  the 
State,  by  making  its  own  material  welfare  the 
supreme  end  of  the  citizen's  aim  and  effort,  will 
deprive  patriotism  of  that  strain  of  idealism  and 
cosmopolitanism  which  alone  can  hold  its  base, 
rancorous,  egoistic  elements  in  check. 

'  We  were  ordered  to  be  patriots,"  said  Heine, 
"  and  we  were  patriots,  for  we  do  all  that  our  rulers 
bid  us.  But  this  patriotism  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  feelings  which  bear  the  same 
name  in  France.  To  a  Frenchman  patriotism 
means  that  his  heart  is  warmed,  that  this  warmth 
extends  and  diffuses  itself,  that  his  love  embraces 
not  only  his  immediate  belongings,  but  the  whole 
of  France,  the  whole  of  the  civilized  world.  A 
German's  patriotism,  on  the  contrary,  means  that 
his  heart  contracts,  that  it  shrinks  like  leather  in 
the  cold,  that  he  hates  all  that  is  foreign,  that  he 
is  no  more  a  citizen  of  the  world,  no  more  a 
European,  but  only  a  narrow  German.  .  .  .  Thus 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  85 

began  that  mean,  coarse,  uncultured  opposition  to 
a  sentiment  the  highest  and  noblest  that  Germany 
has  begotten,  I  mean  to  that  humanity,  that  uni- 
versal brotherhood,  that  cosmopolitanism  .  .  .  that 
our  great  writers  l  have  always  maintained." 

This  high  and  noble  sentiment  has  its  roots  in 
the  latent  idealism  of  man's  heart.  Few  men  are 
avowedly  or  even  consciously  idealistic.  But  every 
healthy-minded  man  keeps  open  his  communica- 
tions with  the  ideal.  So  does  every  healthy-minded 
people.  Even  in  the  days  of  feudalism  men  looked 
beyond  their  own  immediate  rulers,  to  the  Pope  in 
this  direction,  to  the  king  or  Emperor  in  that; 
while  beyond  both  Pope  and  Emperor  they  looked 
to  God.  The  religious  wars  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries  were  as  a  rule  civil  wars. 
They  tore  each  state  asunder.  This,  while  it  added 
to  the  horror  of  them,  was  their  one  redeeming 
feature.  For  it  meant  that  the  combatants  were 
fighting  for  ideals,  which,  however  much  they 
might  have  been  misconceived  or  misinterpreted, 
had  at  least  the  merit  of  transcending  the  horizon 
of  the  State.  It  was  in  the  name  of  a  higher 
Potentate  than  prince  or  Emperor  that  Catholic 
or  Protestant  took  up  arms  against  his  lawful 
sovereign.  In  modern  Germany  idealism  is  at  a 
discount ;  or  rather  it  has  been  deliberately  mate- 
rialized and  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  State. 
The  higher  Potentate,  in  whose  name  the  Germans 
of  the  seventeenth  century  slew  one  another,  has 
become  a  kind  of  State  Official — a  cross  between  a 
super-Chancellor  of  the  Empire  and  a  super-Chief 

1  i.  e.  the  great  writers  who  flourished  before  the  days  of 
Prussian  ascendancy. 


86          THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

of  the  Staff.  The  State  itself,  despotic  and  in- 
quisitorial, confronts  the  citizen  at  every  turn. 
He  cannot  look  above  it,  for  it  completely  over- 
shadows his  sky.  Whenever  he  tries  to  lead  a 
larger  and  freer  life,  he  feels  its  relentless  counter- 
pressure.  Unable  to  escape  from  its  control  or  to 
transcend  the  ever-widening  horizon  of  its  influence, 
he  is  driven  at  last  to  do  what  it  intends  him  to 
do — he  is  driven  to  idealize  the  State.  If  the  Deity, 
as  he  is  now  told,  has  placed  his  omnipotence  at 
the  service  of  Germany,  and  has  thereby  shrunk  to 
the  dimensions  of  a  tribal  God,  the  German  citizen 
cannot  well  Be  expected  to  look  at  things  from  a 
cosmopolitan  point  of  view.  He  belongs  to  a 
Chosen  People;  and  it  is  but  right  that  he  should 
bear  himself  accordingly. 

It  is  in  some  such  way  as  this  that  Germany  has 
become  her  own  ideal, — a  fact  which  she  now  pro- 
claims to  the  world,  with  shrill  blasts  of  exultation 
and  defiance.  At  no  time  have  the  Germans  been 
wanting  in  a  good  opinion  of  themselves.  In  the 
days  of  their  political  disunion,  when  even  the 
smallest  of  duchies  counted  for  more  in  the  eyes 
of  its  citizens  than  the  Fatherland,  they  were  proud 
of  their  lack  of  patriotism,  and  boasted,  with 
patriotic  ardour,  that  in  this  respect  they  were 
in  advance  of  all  other  nations.  "  If  you  sink," 
said  Fichte  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  to  his 
fellow-countrymen,  "  Humanity  sinks  with  you, 
without  hope  of  future  restoration."  .  Could  national 
self-esteem  go  further  than  this  ?  Perhaps  not,  but 
it  might  be,  and  has  been,  more  offensively  and  less 
tersely  expressed.  '  The  proud  conviction,"  says 
General  Bernhardi,  "  forces  itself  upon  us  with 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  87 

irresistible  power  that  a  high,  if  not  the  highest, 
importance  for  the  entire  development  of  the 
human  race  is  ascribable  to  the  German  people." 
"  No  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe,"  says  the 
same  writer,  "is  so  able  to  grasp  and  appropriate 
all  the  elements  of  culture,  to  add  to  them  from 
the  stores  of  its  own  spiritual  endowment,  and  to 
give  back  to  mankind  richer  gifts  than  it  received." 
"  Germany,"  said  Treitschke,  "  has  enriched  the 
store  of  traditional  European  culture  with  new  and 
independent  ideas  and  ideals,  and  won  a  position 
in  the  great  community  of  civilized  nations  which 
none  else  could  fill.  ...  Depth  of  conviction, 
idealism,  universality,  the  power  to  look  beyond 
all  the  limits  of  a  finite  existence,  to  sympathize 
with  all  that  is  human,  to  traverse  the  realm  of 
ideas  in  companionship  with  the  noblest  of  all 
nations  and  ages — this  has  at  all  times  been  the 
German  characteristic ;  this  has  been  extolled  as 
the  prerogative  of  German  culture."  Having 
quoted  these  choice  extracts  from  the  works  of  his 
favourite  author,  General  Bernhardi  goes  on  to 
say  :  "To  no  nation,  except  the  German,  has  it 
been  given  to  enjoy  in  its  inner  self  that  which  is 
given  to  mankind  as  a  whole.  We  often  see  in 
other  nations  a  greater  intensity  of  specialized 
ability,  but  never  the  same  capacity  for  general- 
ization and  absorption.  It  is  this  quality  which 
specially  fits  us  for  the  leadership  in  the  intellectual 
world,  and  imposes  on  us  the  obligation  to  maintain 
that  position."  Professor  Wilhelm  Ostwald  says 
that  "  Germany  has  reached  a  higher  type  of  civil- 
ization than  other  peoples,  and  the  result  of  the 
(present)  war  will  be  the  organization  of  Europe 


88  THE   NEMESIS    OF   DOCILITY 

under  German  leadership."  Another  authority 
says  :  "  We  are  the  most  intelligent  nation  there 
is,  and  the  most  advanced  in  science  and  art." 
Professor  Karl  Lamprecht,  greatly  daring,  boasts 
that  "  we  are  the  freest  people  on  earth."  Other 
writers,  coming  down  to  more  mundane  matters, 
assure  us  that  "  we  (Germans)  are  the  best  sailors, 
the  best  colonists,  and  even  the  best  merchants." 
But  all  these  trumpet-blowers  are  easily  out- 
trumpeted  by  Professor  Adolf  Lassen,  who,  in  a 
letter  to  a  Dutch  correspondent,  has  recently  de- 
livered himself  of  the  following  propositions  :  "  We 
are  morally  and  intellectually  superior  to  all  men. 
We  are  peerless.  So,  too,  are  our  organizations 
and  institutions.  .  .  .  We  threaten  no  one  so  long 
as  he  does  not  attack  us.  We  do  good  to  every- 
body. .  .  .  We  are  truthful;  our  characteristics  are 
humanity,  gentleness,  conscience,  the  virtues  of 
Christ.  In  a  world  of  wickedness  we  represent 
love,  and  God  is  with  us." 

The  nation  which  can  allow  its  writers  to  talk  in 
this  strain,  however  richly  it  may  be  endowed  in 
other  ways,  is  sadly  deficient  in  one  of  the  most 
precious  of  all  spiritual  possessions — the  sense  of 
humour.  This,  indeed,  is  one  of  the  senses  which 
the  docile-dogmatic  diathesis  is  predestined  to 
destroy.  The  sense  of  humour,  which  keeps  alive 
in  a  man  the  power  of  laughing  at  himself  as  well 
as  at  others,  has  the  sense  of  proportion  as  its  other 
self.  But  the  man  who  is  perpetually  obeyed  and 
deferred  to  by  a  number  of  lesser  men  is  tempted 
to  take  himself  so  seriously  that  his  sense  of  pro- 
portion becomes  gradually  atrophied,  his  standard 
of  values  becomes  gradually  debased,  and  at  last 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  89 

he  becomes  incapable  of  laughing  at  himself. 
Meanwhile,  the  lesser  men  who  obey  and  defer  to 
him,  being  compelled  to  take  him  very  seriously, 
lose  their  power  of  laughing  at  him  or  at  any  one 
else,  and  share  with  him  the  loss  of  the  sense  of 
proportion  and  the  debasement  of  the  standard  of 
values  which  inevitably  follow  when  laughter  dies 
out  of  a  man's  life. 

When  a  nation  loses  its  sense  of  humour,  when  it 
becomes  its  own  ideal,  when  the  standard  by  which 
it  measures  human  worth  is  determined  by  its  own 
achievements,  its  contempt  for  other  nations  will 
know  no  limits.  Whatever  diverges  from  its  own 
way  of  living  it  will  condemn,  without  a  further 
hearing,  as  bad;  and  the  greater  the  angle  of 
divergence,  the  lower  in  the  scale  of  civilization 
will  it  place  the  defaulting  nation.  Dogmatism 
and  imaginative  sympathy  are  mutually  exclusive 
qualities;  and  without  imaginative  sympathy,  as 
no  man  can  enter  into  the  life  of  another  man,  so 
.no  nation  can  enter  into  the  life  of  another  nation,— 
can  understand  its  way  of  living,  can  feel  the  force 
of  its  ideals,  can  realize  what  it  stands  for,  can 
discover  the  secret  sources  of  its  strength.  The 
isolation  of  which  Germany  sometimes  complains 
is  spiritual  rather  than  political.  No  nation  is  so 
lonely;  but  the  loneliness  is  of  her  own  seeking; 
for  what  shuts  her  off  from  the  lives  of  other  nations 
is  the  Chinese  Wall  of  her  colossal  self-esteem.  She 
examines  the  ways  and  works  of  each  nation  in 
turn,  weighs  them  in  the  scales  of  her  "  Kultur," 
and  duly  records  their  shortcomings.  The  highest 
compliment  that  she  can  pay  to  another  nation  is 
to  assume  that  it  is  a  poor  imitation  of  herself. 


90          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

Because,  as  a  ruling  power,  she  is  hated  by  the 
Poles,  the  Alsatians,  and  the  Danes,  she  takes  for 
granted  that  England,  as  a  ruling  Power,  is  hated 
by  the  Egyptians  and  the  Hindoos.  She  cannot 
realize  that  our  way  of  dealing  with  subject  peoples 
is  entirely  different  from  hers.  She  assumes  that 
it  is  the  same  in  principle — for  she  is  too  unimagin- 
ative and  self-centred  to  conceive  of  any  other  way 
—but  feebler,  less  thorough,  and  less  effective. 
Still,  the  fact  that  she  expected  Egypt  and  India 
to  rise  against  us  must  be  taken  as  a  compliment, 
for  it  shows  that  she  credited  us  with  a  repressive 
brutality  which  differed  in  degree,  but  not  in  kind, 
from  her  own.  The  nations  whose  scheme  of  life 
is  wholly  incommensurate  with  hers  she  regards  as 
barbarians  and  makes  no  attempt  to  understand. 

What  she  thinks  of  us  and  our  Allies  we  know, 
for  she  has  told  us  frankly  both  before  the  war  began 
and  since.  England,  having  built  up  a  large  empire 
by  fraud  and  violence  while  other  European  nations 
were  quarrelling,  at  her  instigation,  among  them- 
selves, is  now  immersed  in  money-making,  is  allow- 
ing luxury  and  self-indulgence  to  sap  her  energy, 
is  in  favour  of  peace  at  any  price,  and  is  waiting 
for  the  sceptre  of  world-dominion  to  be  wrested 
from  her  nerveless  grasp.  '  With  the  English/' 
said  Treitschke  forty  years  ago,  "  love  of  money 
has  killed  every  sentiment  of  honour  and  every 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  though  they 
hide  their  poltroonery  and  materialism  under  the 
unctuous  phrases  of  religion."  France  is  a  decadent 
and  even  a  dying  nation.  Nothing  but  a  liberal 
infusion  of  German  blood — an  operation  which  pre- 
supposes a  war  of  conquest — can  save  her  from 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  91 

extinction.1  Russia  is  undeveloped  and  therefore 
semi-barbarous,  yet  lacks  the  vigour  and  sanity  of 
healthy  growth.  The  ignorance  and  superstition 
of  her  masses  is  equalled  only  by  the  corruption 
and  dishonesty  of'  her  classes.  Like  a  fruit  which 
rots  before  it  ripens,  she  combines  the  defects  of 
immaturity  with  those  of  premature  decay.  Pro- 
fessor Harnack  thinks  that  to  call  her  semi-Asiatic 
is  to  pronounce  her  condemnation  and  to  give 
judgment  against  this  country  for  having  allied 
itself  with  her.  Japan  is  wholly  Asiatic.  This 
fact  needs  no  comment.  As  for  the  smaller  nations, 
their  continued  existence  as  independent  States  is 
a  crime  against  German  culture  which  is  to  be 
expiated  only  by  their  incorporation  in  the  German 
Empire,  if  they  belong  to  Northern  Europe,  or,  if 
they  are  Balkan  Powers,  by  their  acceptance, 
directly  of  Austrian,  indirectly  of  German,  hegemony. 

Such  being  the  attitude  of  the  German  people 
towards  themselves  and  the  rest  of  the  world,  an 
agitation  in  favour  of  a  scheme  of  national  expan- 
sion was  bound,  sooner  or  later,  to  be  set  on  foot. 

1  When  the  German  army  was  approaching  Paris  just 
before  the  Battle  of  the  Marne,  a  German  general,  sitting 
by  the  side  of  Madame  Delbet  (mother  of  Professor  Delbet, 
the  well-known  doctor),  while  his  army  corps  was  defiling 
over  a  bridge  in  her  grounds,  spoke  of  the  French  as  "a 
degenerate  race,  whose  stamina  has  disappeared,"  and 
added,  "  I  will  tell  you  what  we  shall  do  with  them.  It 
will  be  our  ultimatum.  We  shall  keep  the  best  among 
the  men,  those  who  are  the  least  degenerate,  and  marry 
them  to  sturdy  German  women.  The  rest  we  shall  send 
over  to  America.  As  for  the  Russians,"  said  the  same 
authority,  "  they  simply  do  not  know  what  an  army  is." 
Before  nightfall  the  general  and  his  army  corps  were  in  full 
retreat. 


92  THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

To  formulate  such  a  scheme  has  been  the  work  of 
the  Pan-German  League,  which  was  founded  in  1891, 
and  which,  with  its  daughter  and  sister  societies, 
now  counts  its  adherents  by  millions.  1  Long 
before  the  League  was  founded,  its  policy  was  de- 
nned by  a  German  historian  in  the  following  pro- 
phetic sentence  :  "  Domination  belongs  to  Germany 
because  she  is  a  nation  d' elite,  a  noble  nation,  and 
as  a  consequence  entitled  to  act  towards  her  neigh- 
bours as  every  man  endowed  with  superior  brains 
or  superior  strength  has  a  right  to  act  towards 
those  individuals  with  inferior  brains  or  inferior 
strength  by  whom  he  is  surrounded."  2  It  is  this 
conception  of  the  manifest  destiny  of  their  country 
which  has  inspired  the  Pan-Germans,  and  deter- 
mined their  "  plan  of  campaign." 

In  the  first  sentence  of  the  League's  manifesto 
we  read  that  "  The  Pan-German  federation  has  for 
object  .  .  .  the  welding  into  a  compact  whole  of 
Germans  everywhere."  This  is  a  somewhat  vague 
programme;  but  under  cover  of  it  it  is  possible  to 
advocate  the  absorption  into  the  German  Empire 
of  the  German  inhabitants  of  Austria,  Switzerland, 
and  the  Baltic  Provinces  of  Russia,  the  Dutch, 
the  Flemish  population  of  Belgium,  much  of  the 
population  of  Eastern  France,  not  to  speak  of 
the  dwellers  in  these  islands  of  Anglo-Saxon  de- 
scent. It  is  possible  to  advocate  more  than  this. 
Many  millions  of  Germans  have  migrated  to  other 
lands,  especially  to  the  United  States,  and  if 

1  Mr.  C.  R.  L.  Fletcher  says  that  the  League  itself  is 
now  believed  to  number  something  like  half  a  million  of  the 
"  intellectuals  "  of  Germany. 

2  History  of  the  German  Empire,  by  Friedrich  Wilhelm 
von  Gieschalt. 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  93 

"  Germans  everywhere  "  are  to  be  welded  into  a 
"  compact  whole,"  the  German  settlers  in  other 
countries,  even  if  they  have  become  naturalized 
citizens  of  those  countries,  are  to  regard  themselves 
as  still  belonging  to  the  greater  Germany  of  which 
the  League  dreams,  and  are  to  bear  themselves 
accordingly.  In  other  words,  if  occasion  require, 
they  are  to  act  as  spies  and  traitors  in  the  lands 
of  their  adoption  and  to  make  German  world- 
supremacy  their  highest  end  and  aim.  But  the 
Pan-German  vision  of  empire  has  a  wider  range 
even  than  this.  Germany  needs  outlets  for  her 
teeming  population, — outlets  in  which,  however 
remote  they  may  be,  the  colonies  will  be  able  to 
diffuse  the  culture  and  extend  the  commerce  of  the 
Fatherland,  under  the  German  flag.  As  nearly  all 
the  regions  which  are  suitable  for  settlement  by 
whites  have  by  this  time  been  colonized  by  other 
European  Powers,  the  Pan-German  demand  for 
colonies  in  the  Temperate  Zone  cannot  be  gratified 
except  by  the  forcible  annexation  of  some  of  the 
foreign  possessions  of  those  Powers.  With  this 
end  in  view,  campaigns  of  calumny  and  hatred 
against  France  and  England  have  been  carried  on 
in  the  Pan-German  Press,  and  the  dismemberment 
of  their  empires  has  been  more  than  hinted  at. 
Nor  is  it  only  of  colonial  possessions  in  the 
Temperate  Zone  that  the  Pan-Germans  dream. 
Treitschke,  who  in  the  world  of  ideas  was  the 
founder  of  Pan-Germanism,  openly  advocated  the 
annexation  of  Holland  by  Germany,  and  the  con- 
sequent capture  of  a  ready-made  colonial  empire 
in  the  Tropics. 

Large  as  is  this  programme  of  expansion,  Pan- 


94          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

German  ambition  transcends  even  its  far-off 
horizon.  "  Germany,"  says  Mr.  C.  R.  L.  Fletcher, 
"  actually  and  in  the  near  future  aspires  to  the 
dominion  of  the  world,  and  to  nothing  short  of 
that  dominion."  Mr.  Fletcher  adds  that  "  the 
German  people  as  a  whole  have  never  avowed 
their  intentions;  still  less  has  the  German  Govern- 
ment put  them  forward  as  a  programme.  .  .  . 
Nevertheless,  these  intentions  have  been  publicly 
avowed  in  newspapers  and  speeches  for  the  last 
twenty-three  years,  and  each  year  they  have  gained 
more  acceptance  in  all  ranks  of  the  nation."  Nor 
have  they  been  advocated  in  newspapers  and 
speeches  only.  Books,  such  as  Herr  Daniel's 
Geographical  Manual  (in  which  the  boundaries  of 
European  Germany  are  so  defined  as  to  double  the 
area  and  nearly  double  the  population  of  the 
empire),  Herr  Class's  West  Morocco  for  Germany 
(in  which  the  annexation  of  Eastern  France  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Somme  to  Toulon  is  openly 
advocated),  Herr  Frymann's  //  /  were  Emperor 
(in  which  it  is  proposed  inter  alia  that  France,  when 
conquered,  shall  cede  a  large  tract  of  territory 
"  which  will  be  evacuated  by  all  its  inhabitants," 
and  in  which  Austria  is  warned,  at  her  peril,  not 
to  make  any  concessions  to  her  Slav  subjects),  Herr 
Paul  Rohrbach's  The  German  Idea  in  the  World  (in 
which  the  little  nationalities  are  told  that  they 
"  must  fall  into  line  with  the  world-power  of  Ger- 
many "),  General  Bernhardi's  Germany  and  the 
Next  War  (one  chapter  of  which  is  headed  "  World- 
Power  or  Downfall "),  Colonel  H.  Froebenius's 
The  German  Empire  s  Hour  of  Destiny,  Germany 
as  a  World  Power  (one  of  the  books  couronnes  by 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  95 

the  League),  the  Pan-German  Catechism,  and  scores 
of  other  works  are  all  inspired  in  varying  degrees 
by  the  same  megalomaniacal  dream. 

In  this,  as  in  other  matters,  Treitschke  has  been 
the  forerunner  and  spiritual  founder  of  the  League. 
"  When  the  German  flag  flies  over  and  protects 
this  vast  Empire,  to  whom,"  he  asks,  "  will  belong 
the  sceptre  of  the  Universe?  What  nation  will 
impose  its  wishes  on  the  other  enfeebled  and  de- 
cadent peoples?  Will  it  not  be  Germany  that  will 
have  the  mission  to  ensure  the  peace  of  the  world  ?  " 
These  words,  which  were  written  by  a  historian 
who  died  twenty  years  ago,  might  have  been 
spoken  yesterday  at  a  meeting  of  the  Pan-Germans. 
The  "  mission  "  which  Treitschke  assigns  to  Ger- 
many is  one  which  the  League,  with  ever-growing 
insistence,  has  long  been  urging  her  to  undertake. 

It  is  to  the  generous  ardour  of  youth  that  the 
vision  of  Germany  wielding  "  the  sceptre  of  the 
Universe  "  appeals  most  strongly.  The  diary  of  a 
German  second-lieutenant  who  was  captured  in 
August  1914  by  our  troops  contains  the  following 
significant  entries  :  July  20  (note  the  date  !).  "At 
last  the  Day  !  To  have  lived  to  see  it  !  We  are 
ready  :  let  him  come  who  may.  The  world-race 
is  destined  to  be  German."  August  u.  "To-night 
Wilhelm  the  Greater  has  given  us  a  beautiful 
address  :  *  You  think  each  day  of  your  Emperor ; 
do  not  forget  God/  His  Majesty  should  remember 
that  in  thinking  of  him  we  think  of  God,  for  is  he 
not  the  Almighty's  instrument  in  this  glorious 
fight  for  Right  ?  "  Sancta  simplicitas !  If  there 
are  many  members  of  the  rising  generation  who 
share  this  officer's  pious  zeal  for  the  gospel  of 


96          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

national  brigandage,  the  Pan-Germans  have  good 
cause  to  congratulate  themselves  on  the  success 
of  their  propaganda. 

'  The  world-race  is  to  be  German."  This,  in  a 
brief  sentence,  is  the  real  programme  of  the  Pan- 
German  League.  What  the  sentence  means  I  do 
not  fully  understand.  Nor  do  I  see  clearly  how 
the  ideal  which  it  formulates  is  to  be  realized. 
Herr  Frymann  advocates  the  wholesale  expulsion 
of  the  French  from  Eastern  France  so  as  to  make 
room  for  immigrating  Germans.  Is  it  in  this  way 
that  the  world-race  is  to  become  German?  If  it 
is,  to  what  remote  and  undesirable  lands  are  the 
expelled  peoples  to  be  deported?  "  Solitudinem 
faciunt.  Pacem  appellant."  Is  it  proposed  that 
Germany  shall  impose  peace  on  her  enemies  by 
exterminating  them?  There  is,  I  believe,  another 
and  more  humane  way  of  providing  for  the  realiza- 
tion of  Pan-German  ambition,  which  is  based  on 
what  is  known  as  the  Dungervolk  theory  of  race. 
According  to  this  theory,  the  function  of  the 
inferior,  or  non-German,  races  is  to  manure  the 
soil  of  the  world  and  so  prepare  it  for  the  reception 
of  the  seed  of  the  super-race — the  German.  How 
this  quasi-agricultural  operation  is  to  be  carried 
out  I  cannot  pretend  to  say.  I  suppose  the  inferior 
races  are  to  be  reduced  to  a  state  of  political  and 
economic  serfdom,  so  that  they  may  do  for  German 
culture  what  the  slave  population  of  Attica  did 
for  Athenian  culture  in  the  fifth  and  fourth  cen- 
turies B.C.  Herr  K.  F.  Wolff's  proposal  that  the 
conquered  peoples  shall  be  "  annihilated "  (as 
nationalities)  by  being  deprived  of  all  political 
and  civic  rights,  including  the  right  to  be  educated 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  97 

and  to  use  their  own  language,  seems  to  point  in 
this  direction.  So  does  the  action  of  the  League 
in  conducting  a  violent  agitation  against  the 
Austrian  Government  in  1897,  for  having  proposed 
certain  concessions  to  the  Czech  population  of 
Bohemia  (including  the  free  use  of  their  mother 
tongue) — an  agitation  which,  though  discoun- 
tenanced by  the  German  State,  was  so  successful 
that  the  laws  in  favour  of  the  Czechs  were  repealed 
and  the  Minister  who  had  proposed  them  was  dis- 
missed. If  the  Austrian  Government  did  not  know 
how  Dungervolk  ought  to  be  treated,  the  League 
did;  and  even  in  that  early  period  of  its  existence 
it  was  strong  enough  to  have  its  way.  But  what- 
ever may  be  the  precise  procedure  by  which  the 
ends  of  Pan-German  ambition  are  to  be  compassed, 
as  to  the  ends  themselves  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
'  The  Sceptre  of  the  Universe  "  is  to  be  wielded  by 
Germany;  and  "  the  world-race  is  to  be  German." 
These  are  the  sovereign  dogmas  of  the  Pan-German 
creed.  On  these  two  ideals  hang  all  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets. 

Does  Pan-Germanism  propose  to  carry  out  its 
programme  by  pacific  methods  or  by  war?  By 
war.  No  other  method  is  contemplated.  Diplo- 
macy may  do  something ;  but  it  must  resolve  itself 
sooner  or  later  into  the  menace  of  war.  The 
humiliation  of  France  in  1905,  of  Russia  in  1909, 
were  triumphs  of  sabre-rattling,  not  of  diplomacy. 
'  What  we  now  wish  to  attain,"  says  General 
Bernhardi  (who  devotes  a  whole  chapter  to  the 
glorification  of  war),  "  must  be  fought  for  and 
won."  "  War,"  said  the  prophet  of  Pan-German- 
ism, "  is  the  mightiest  and  most  efficient  moulder 

H 


98          THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

of  nations.  Only  by  war  does  a  nation  become  a 
nation,  and  the  expansion  of  existing  states  pro- 
ceeds in  most  cases  by  way  of  conquest."  Speak- 
ing of  the  Pan-German  Catechism,  one  of  the  pub- 
lications of  the  League,  Mr.  Fletcher  says  that 
every  line  of  it  "  expresses  the  doctrine  of  aggres- 
sive war  as  the  highest  duty  of  German  men." 
The  growth  of  Chauvinism  in  Germany  during  the 
past  ten  or  twelve  years  is  a  phenomenon  which 
Germans  who,  like  Professor  O.  Nippold,  have  not 
been  carried  off  their  feet  by  the  rising  tide  of 
Pan-Germanism  have  noted  with  surprise  and 
alarm.  Mr.  Dawson  says  that  "  a  chance  list 
which  lies  before  me  as  I  write  of  thirty-two  Ger- 
man war-pamphlets  published  during  the  three 
years  1911-13  shows  six  to  have  contemplated  a 
war  with  England,  seven  a  war  with  France,  and 
nine  a  European  conflagration."  Writing  of  this 
flood  of  Chauvinistic  literature,  Professor  Nippold 
says  :  "  Hand  in  hand  with  this  outspoken  hostility 
to  foreign  countries  are  conjoined  a  one-sided 
exaltation  of  war  and  a  war-mania  which  would 
have  been  regarded  as  impossible  a  few  years  ago. 
...  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  agitation  is 
part  of  a  deliberate  scheme,  the  object  of  which 
is  gradually  to  win  the  population,  and  if  possible 
the  Government,  by  any  means  whatever — even 
by  the  distortion  of  fact  and  malicious  slander— 
for  the  programme  of  the  Chauvinists.  These 
people  not  only  incite  the  nation  to  war,  but 
systematically  stimulate  the  desire  for  war.  War 
is  pictured  not  as  a  possibility  that  may  come,  but 
as  a  necessity  that  must  come,  and  the  sooner  the 
better  ...  a  necessity  at  which  we  should,  in  the 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  99 

interests  of  the  German  nation,  rejoice.  From 
this  dogma  it  is  only  a  small  step  to  the  next  maxim 
of  the  Chauvinists  .  .  .  the  maxim  of  the  *  war 
of  attack/  or  the  so-called  preventive  war.  If 
war  has  to  come,  then  let  it  come  at  the  moment 
most  favourable  for  us.  In  other  words,  do  not 
let  us  wait  until  a  formal  cause  for  war  occurs,  but 
let  us  strike  when  it  best  suits  us,  and  above  all  let 
us  do  it  soon  !  .  .  .  From  the  idea  of  a  defensive 
war  for  urgent  reasons  the  Chauvinists  have  ad- 
vanced to  the  idea  of  an  offensive  war  for  no 
reason  at  all,  and  they  flatter  themselves  that  the 
German  nation  has  undergone  the  same  trans- 
formation." 1  The  "  Chauvinists "  whose  policy 
Professor  Nippold  exposes  are  the  members  of  the 
Pan-German  League  and  the  associated  societies; 
and  their  policy,  as  he  expounds  it,  is  to  procure  the 
territorial  and  political  aggrandizement  of  Germany 
by  means  of  a  wantonly  aggressive  war. 

In  Pan-Germanism  we  have  German  dogmatism 
in  its  most  arrogant,  most  egoistic,  most  aggressive 
mood, — a  mood  so  arrogant,  so  egoistic,  and  so 
aggressive  that  these  epithets  do  less  than  justice 
to  it.  In  Pan-Germanism — to  speak  more  plainly 
—the  egomania,  the  self-centred  madness,  of  a 
great  nation  has  become  the  religion  of  her  sons. 
Not  of  all  her  sons — not  of  more  than  a  minority 
of  them;  but  of  a  powerful  minority  which  knows 
its  own  mind  and  is  well  able  to  give  a  lead  to  the 
rest  of  the  nation.  For  the  Pan-German  is  nothing 
if  not  super-patriotic ;  and  as  patriotism  is  authori- 
tatively taught  in  all  the  German  schools  and  by 

1  Quoted  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Dawson  in  What  is  Wrong  with 
Germany  ? 


100         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

all  the  agencies  at  the  disposal  of  the  State,  the 
super-patriot  will  find  no  difficulty  in  rallying  the 
people  round  his  banner  and  leading  them  forth, 
when  "  the  Day  "  comes,  on  the  great  adventure 
which  he  has  so  long  premeditated.  Meanwhile 
new  societies  of  Pan-German  tendency  spring  up 
from  year  to  year,  and  the  old  societies  enrol  new 
members  from  day  to  day.  Also  the  programme 
of  national  expansion  by  means  of  unprovoked  war 
becomes  more  and  more  violent,  and  is  more  and 
more  openly  advocated.  These  facts  prove  con- 
clusively that  the  leaven  of  Pan-Germanism  is  at 
work  in  all  parts  of  the  German  world.1 

So  much  for  the  world-hunger  and  war-lust  of 
the  German  people.  What  of  the  State?  The 
State  has  drilled  and  dragooned  the  people  and 
made  it  subservient  to  its  will.  For  what  pur- 
pose? What  is  the  will  of  the  German  State? 
'  The  State,"  says  Treitschke,  "  is  power."  If  so, 
its  will  must  be  to  more  and  still  more  power. 
And  what  is  power,  in  Treitschke's  sense  of  the 
word,  but  dominion  over  others?  The  Prussian 

1  I  am  told  that  Pan-Germanism  has  made  greater 
headway  in  Southern  Germany  and  even  in  Austrian 
Germany  than  in  Prussia.  This  I  can  well  believe.  If  a 
Pan-German  movement  were  to  be  inaugurated,  the 
Prussian  people,  docile  and  unimaginative,  would  naturally 
look  to  the  State  to  give  them  a  lead ;  and  though  the 
State  might  patronize  such  a  movement,  it  could  not  well 
initiate  it  or  even  direct  its  development.  Among  the 
South  Germans,  on  the  other  hand,  who  have  always  had 
more  imagination  and  more  initiative  than  the  Prussians 
— qualities  which  they  are  losing  under  Prussian  influence, 
but  have  not  yet  lost, — when  once  they  had  been  inoculated 
with  Prussian  arrogance  and  aggressiveness,  the  idee  mere 
of  Pan-Germanism  might  be  expected  to  find  a  suitable 
seed-bed  and  to  evolve  itself  by  means  of  a  more  or  less 
spontaneous  movement. 


THE  DREAM   OF  A  DOCILE   WORLD     101 

oligarchy  has  extended  its  sway  over  the  65,000,000 
inhabitants  of  Germany.  Does  it  regard  this 
achievement  as  an  end  itself?  Can  we  expect  it 
to  do  so?  This  docile  and  well-disciplined  nation 
is  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  its  rulers;  and 
an  instrument  is  a  thing  to  use,  not  to  lay  on  a 
shelf  for  the  rest  of  time.  Besides,  the  oligarchy 
has  another  instrument  at  its  command,  the  pur- 
pose of  which  is  even  more  obvious — a  mighty 
citizen  army,  which,  in  respect  of  discipline,  organ- 
ization, and  equipment,  is  supposed  to  surpass  all 
others.  The  rulers  of  the  nation  are  also  the 
chiefs  of  the  army.  They  think  in  terms  of  war. 
They  speak  of  their  nation  as  "an  army  which 
possesses  a  country."  They  say  that  Prussia,  the 
power  which  dominates  Germany,  is  "  a  state  of 
soldiers  and  officials."  The  nation  and  the  army 
have  so  much  in  common  that,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  end  for  which  they  have  been  drilled 
and  organized,  they  may  be  regarded  as  one. 
What  is  that  end? 

Given  a  nation  which  has  been  late  in  taking 
its  place  among  the  great  Powers  of  the  world, 
and  is  therefore  apt  to  regard  its  rivals  with  the 
envy,  jealousy,  and  self-assertion  of  a  parvenu  ; 
which  has  waked  up  to  world-ambition  only  to 
find  that  the  best  parts  of  the  world  had  already 
been  appropriated;  which  has  an  enormous  belief 
in  itself  and  its  own  scheme  of  life,  regarding  itself 
as  immeasurably  greater,  more  gifted,  more  culti- 
vated, more  learned  than  any  other  nation;  which 
possesses  (or  is  possessed  by)  the  strongest  army 
that  the  world  has  ever  seen ;  which  yields  implicit 
obedience  to  its  rulers  and  has  absolute  confidence 


102         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

in  their  ability,  foresight,  and  wisdom; — given  these 
things,  and  given  that  the  rulers  of  that  nation  are 
all  drill-sergeants  at  heart;  that  their  chief  func- 
tion is  that  of  imposing  their  will  on  others;  that 
the  attitude  which  they  instinctively  adopt  towards 
all  who  come  under  their  sway,  towards  all,  one 
might  almost  add,  with  whom  they  have  any  deal- 
ings, is  that  of  the  Junker-officer  of  the  eighteenth 
century — forceful,  imperious,  dictatorial,  domineer- 
ing— towards  the  serf-soldiers  who  marched  to 
death  at  his  commands  :  given  all  these  things, 
what  may  be  expected  to  happen? 

If  the  statesmen  of  Germany  have  been  in  any 
doubt  as  to  the  answer  to  this  question,  the  people, 
as  we  have  seen,  have  not.  The  logic  of  the  situa- 
tion has  been  too  strong  for  them.  A  group  of 
interrelated  facts  and  tendencies,  historical,  politi- 
cal, psychological,  has  long  hung,  like  the  sword 
of  Damocles,  over  the  peace  of  the  world.  The  rise 
of  Pan-Germanism  meant  that  the  thread  by  which 
the  sword  was  suspended  had  begun  to  wear  thin. 

Opinions  differ  as  to  which  of  the  three  estates 
of  the  German  realm — the  Emperor,  the  State 
(that  is,  the  Prussian  oligarchy)  and  the  People — 
has  the  greatest  share  of  responsibility  for  the 
present  war.  Mr.  Austin  Harrison  has  given  his 
latest  book  the  suggestive  title  of  The  Kaiser  s 
War.  Other  writers  hold  that  the  real  cause  of 
the  war  is  the  traditional  militarism  of  the  State. 
But  Mr.  C.  R.  L.  Fletcher  seems  to  think  that  the 
Pan-German  movement,  which  he  regards  as  a 
spontaneous  outburst  of  national  Chauvinism,  has 
forced  the  hand  of  the  State  and  so  precipitated 
the  conflict. 


THE   DREAM  OF  A   DOCILE   WORLD    103 

It  is  probable  that  all  three  explanations  are 
correct. 

The  Emperor  may  not  have  desired  or  even 
looked  forward  to  a  world- wide  conflagration;  but 
he  has  undoubtedly  allowed  his  subjects  to  walk 
in  a  path  which  led  to  the  present  war,  and  to  no 
other  goal.  The  German  Navy,  which  has  always 
been  his  pet  nursling,  is  a  standing  menace  to  our 
ocean-empire  and  even  to  our  existence  as  an  inde- 
pendent state;  and  its  continual  expansion  was 
bound,  sooner  or  later,  to  provoke  a  rupture  with 
this  country.  Some  of  his  public  utterances,  such 
as  :  "In  future  nothing  must  be  settled  without  the 
intervention  of  Germany  and  her  Emperor.'1  "  The 
trident  belongs  to  our  hand."  "  Our  future  lies  on 
the  water."  "  I  shall  not  rest  till  I  have  brought  my 
navy  up  to  the  same  standard  as  my  army  "  (that 
is,  made  it  the  strongest  in  the  world) , — could  scarcely 
fail  to  encourage  dreams  of  world-dominion  based 
on  supreme  sea-power.  His  constant  glorification 
of  the  military  spirit,  his  sabre-rattling,  his  allusions 
to  "  mailed  fists "  and  "  shining  armour,"  his 
famous  toast  to  the  army  :  "  My  glass  is  raised  to 
the  nation  in  arms.  Let  our  powder  be  dry,  our 
swords  sharpened,  our  goal  fixed,  our  forces 
strained," — would  tend  to  keep  alive  in  the  minds 
of  his  people  the  idea  of  impending  war.  And  by 
his  sic  volo,  sic  jubeo  attitude  towards  all  who 
have  crossed  his  path,  by  his  exaltation  of  his 
own  office,  by  his  deification  of  his  Hohenzollern 
ancestors,  remote  and  near,  by  his  patronage  of 
"  the  good  old  German  God,"  he  has  set  his  loyal 
subjects  an  example  of  self-assertion  and  tribal 
egoism  which  they  might  be  pardoned  for  trying 


104        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

to  follow,   even  at  the  risk  of  setting   the  world 
ablaze. 

The  State  had  many  reasons  for  desiring  war. 
Accustomed,  as  it  has  been,  to  control  and  organize 
an  ever-widening  empire,  it  has  been  led  by  the 
impetus  of  its  own  achievements  to  covet,  perhaps 
subconsciously,  a  wider  sphere  for  its  activities 
than  even  the  German  Empire  could  afford.  Its 
own  power  had  been  built  up  and  consolidated  by 
a  series  of  successful  wars.  The  military  element  in 
it  has  always  been  strong,  and  soldiers  have  pro- 
fessional reasons  for  disliking  a  protracted  peace. 
It  may  have  hoped  that  victory  on  a  large  scale 
would  complete  the  work  which  the  overthrow 
of  France  in  1870  began,  the  work  of  reconciling 
the  lesser  German  states  to  Prussian  domination, 
and  so  providing  for  the  final  absorption  of 
Germany  into  Prussia.  But,  strong  as  these  reasons 
are,  the  State  had  another  and  stronger  reason  for 
opening  up  to  the  nation  a  vista  of  world-dominion 
to  be  won  by  war.  Having  played  the  drill- 
sergeant  towards  the  German  people,  and  played  it 
so  effectively  that  at  last  it  could  play  no  other 
part,  it  is  no  matter  for  wonder  that  the  State,  in 
the  pride  of  its  power  and  authority,  should  have 
begun  to  dream  of  playing  the  drill-sergeant  towards 
the  whole  inhabited  world,  or  that,  having  enter- 
tained this  fantastic  dream,  it  should  have  asso- 
ciated the  people  with  itself  in  its  attempt  to  fulfil 
it,  partly  because  it  needed  their  help,  chiefly  so 
that  it  might  reconcile  them  to  their  loss  of 
domestic  freedom.  For  indeed  it  was  through 
this  dream,  more  than  through  any  other  aim  or 
ambition,  that  the  two  great  sections  of  the  German 


THE  DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE  WORLD  105 

people  might  be  expected  to  come  together  and 
realize  their  national  unity.  To  the  minority  who 
spend  their  lives  in  dominating  and  disciplining 
their  fellow-citizens,  the  prospect  of  being  able  to 
dominate  and  discipline  all  their  fellow-men  could 
scarcely  fail  to  make  a  strong  appeal;  while  for 
the  submissive  majority  the  vision  of  world-empire 
would  have  the  supreme  attraction  of  reconciling 
them  to,  and  even  compensating  them  for,  their 
own  hard  and  ignoble  lot.  To  be  drilled  into  help- 
lessness and  passivity  is  a  fate  which  is  not  intrin- 
sically attractive;  but  it  may  be  worth  submitting 
to  if  by  doing  so  one  can  take  a  share  in  drilling 
into  helplessness  and  passivity  the  rest  of  the 
human  race.  A  self-governing  people  can,  if  it 
pleases,  direct  its  energies  towards  an  inward  ideal 
such  as  social  reform ;  but  a  people  which  is  despotic- 
ally ruled  must  either  seek  to  recover  its  freedom, 
as  the  first  condition  of  vital  progress,  or  must 
allow  its  energies  to  be  directed  towards  an  outward 
ideal,  such  as  the  hegemony  of  the  world. 

Under  the  leadership  of  the  Pan-German  League, 
the  German  people  has  chosen  the  latter  course. 
The  dreams  and  aspirations  of  1848  have  faded 
far  away.  The  struggle  for  freedom  has  been 
abandoned.  The  despotic  and  inquisitorial  rule  of 
the  State  has  been  accepted  as  inevitable;  and  the 
forces  which  might  have  fought  under  the  banner 
of  political  reform  have  been  marshalled  under  the 
black  flag  of  piracy  and  plunder.  Mr.  Dawson 
contends  that  if  the  German  Government  in  general 
and  the  Emperor  in  particular  had  disapproved  of 
Pan-German  activities,  they  could  easily  have 
repressed  them.  In  the  earlier  stages  of  the  Pan- 


106        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

German  movement  they  might  no  doubt  have  done 
so.  But  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the  Government 
to  foster  a  Chauvinistic  spirit  in  the  people,  partly 
in  order  to  prepare  them  for  a  war  which  was  felt 
to  be  inevitable  and  even  desirable,  partly  in  order 
to  distract  their  thoughts  from  domestic  affairs; 
and  it  would  therefore  have  been  impolitic  to  dis- 
courage the  trumpet-blowing  and  drum-beating  of 
the  Pan-Germans.  Besides,  as  dogmatism  tends  to 
beget  dogmatism  in  the  docile,  the  Pan-German 
spirit  must  be  held  to  have  been  evoked  by  the 
example  and  influence  of  the  domineering,  dicta- 
torial, sabre-rattling  "  State " ;  and  it  is  unfor- 
tunately easier  to  evoke  an  evil  spirit  than  to 
"  lay  "it.  Mr.  Fletcher  is  probably  right  in  think- 
ing that  the  League  and  the  associated  societies 
have  in  recent  years  become  too  strong  for  the 
Government  to  control  or  even  restrain,  and  that 
their  persistent  advocacy  of  a  war  of  conquest  and 
spoliation  has  been  largely  responsible  for  the  out- 
break of  hostilities.  It  is  certainly  a  significant 
fact  that  Herr  Frymann,  in  his  book,  //  /  was 
Kaiser,  which  appeared  in  1911,  should  have  dared 
to  write  the  following  words  :  '  The  disastrous 
activity  of  William  II  and  the  failure  of  his  coun- 
cillors (to  get  the  better  of  France  in  the  crisis  of 
1911)  have  rendered  the  present  form  of  govern- 
ment insupportable.  The  absurd  poltroonery  of 
the  most  highly  placed  persons,  and  the  complete 
setback  they  have  given  to  German  ambition,  have 
at  length  raised  the  question  whether  it  is  not 
urgent  for  us  to  establish  a  system  of  parliamentary 
government."  The  spectacle  of  a  people  which 
has  never  enjoyed  domestic  freedom  demanding 


THE   DREAM  OF  A  DOCILE   WORLD     107 

parliamentary  government  for  no  other  purpose 
than  that  of  levying  war  on  its  neighbours  is  as 
strange  as  it  is  disquieting.  And  not  less  strange 
and  not  less  disquieting  is  the  spectacle  of  an  auto- 
cratic State  allowing  parliamentary  government 
to  be  openly  demanded  by  its  subjects,  not  on 
political  but  on  Chauvinistic  grounds. 

The  truth  is  that  in  inoculating  an  over-docile 
people  with  its  own  arrogant  dogmatism,  the  Ger- 
man State  has  made  the  most  dangerous  of  all 
experiments, — that  of  calling  into  play  mighty  and 
mysterious  forces  which  may  perhaps  prove  un- 
amenable to  control.  The  State  knows  something 
about  diplomacy,  something  about  the  etiquette, 
the  courtesies,  the  possibilities  of  international 
politics.  The  German  people  know  nothing. 
Writers  like  Prince  Buelow  and  General  Bernhardi 
reproach  their  compatriots  for  their  lack  of  political 
sagacity.  They  seem  to  think  that  the  political 
sense  is  wanting  in  the  German  character.  If  it 
is,  the  cause  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  germ  of  the 
political  sense  is  not  wanting.  This,  I  think,  we 
may  take  for  granted.  But  the  sense  has  never 
been  developed;  for  the  people  have  neither  been 
allowed  to  act  nor  encouraged  to  think  politically; 
and  without  appropriate  exercise  no  sense  can 
grow.  But  be  the  explanation  what  it  may,  the 
fact — that  the  Germans  are  "  political  asses  "  (to 
quote  the  words  of  Ministerial  Director  Althoff) — 
is  indisputable,  and  its  consequences  are  disastrous. 
For  when  the  political  sense  is  wanting  in  a  people, 
there  is  nothing  to  keep  its  ultra-patriotic  ardour 
and  its  spirit  of  aggressive  ambition  in  check.  It 
is  because  the  Germans,  owing  to  centuries  of 


108        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

State-oppression,  are  the  most  docile  of  all  peoples 
and  therefore  the  least  conversant  with  public 
affairs,  that  the  megalomania  which  now  afflicts 
them  knows  no  limit,  and  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  civilized  world  has  been  plunged,  at  their 
bidding,  into  a  calamitous  war. 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  and  see  to  what 
conclusions  our  studies  and  reflections  have  led  us. 

In  the  course  of  a  strange  and  unhappy  history, 
the  Germans,  who  were  once  the  freest  of  all 
peoples,  lost  their  domestic  freedom  and  broke  up 
into  a  multitude  of  petty  states,  ruled  by  irrespon- 
sible despots  whose  will  was  law  to  their  subjects. 
Unable  to  achieve  national  unity  for  themselves, 
they  were  at  last  forcibly  unified  by  the  state  in 
which  authority  was  most  autocratic  and  oppressive, 
and  the  loss  of  freedom  most  complete.  As  the 
result  of  this,  they  were  (and  are)  systematically 
subjected — in  the  citizen  army,  to  a  discipline 
which  has  never  been  rivalled  for  strictness  and 
severity,  in  civil  life,  to  a  bureaucratic  rule  which 
was  (and  is)  rigid  and  inquisitorial  in  the  highest 
degree.  Having  resigned  themselves  to  this  state 
of  things,  and  having  ceased  to  kick  against  the 
pricks,  they  began  to  look  outside  them  for  an 
outlet,  first  for  the  militant  energies  which  other 
nations  spend  in  domestic  politics,  and  then  for  the 
aggressive  dogmatism  which  is  the  counterpart  of 
ultra-docility,  and  which  the  example  of  their 
arrogant  masters  had  called  into  activity;  and, 
having  been  forcibly  Prussianized  themselves,  they 
began  to  dream  of  forcibly  Prussianizing  a  greater 
Germany  which  would  expand  at  last  into  a  world- 


THE   DREAM   OF  A   DOCILE   WORLD     109 

wide  empire.  Docile  and  even  servile  in  the  face 
of  the  officers  and  officials  who  drilled  and  dis- 
ciplined them,  they  began  to  bear  themselves  proudly 
— in  theory,  if  not  in  practice — towards  other 
countries ;  and,  with  the  outgrowth  of  the  sentiment 
of  national  unity,  which,  owing  to  their  having 
been  unified  by  force  of  arms,  had  been  slow  to 
awake,  they  began  to  transfer  to  themselves,  as  a 
nation,  the  prerogatives  of  their  own  ruling  caste, 
and  to  think  of  themselves  as  an  autocratic 
"  State,"  drilling  and  disciplining,  and  dispensing 
the  blessings  of  a  superior  "  Kultur  "  to,  a  docile 
world. 

Hence  these  tears. 


CHAPTER  V 

DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY 

THE  aggressive  egoism  of  an  over-docile  people 
is  the  torch  which  has  set  the  world  ablaze.  In 
what  spirit  might  such  a  people  be  expected  to 
carry  on  war?  And  what  success  might  it  be 
expected  to  achieve?  Before  we  can  attempt  to 
answer  these  questions,  we  must  consider  the 
effect  of  ultra-docility  on  character.  The  docile- 
dogmatic  diathesis  has  behind  it  a  philosophy  of 
life  which  is  vitiated  by  one  fundamental  fallacy — 
distrust  of  human  nature.  For  trust  in  human 
nature  the  ultra-docile  substitute  trust  in  authority 
as  embodied  in  a  particular  person,  such  as  an 
autocrat,  a  teacher,  or  an  officer,  or  in  a  particular 
institution,  such  as  a  State,  a  Church,  or  a  code  of 
law.  The  reason1  why  they  do  this  is  that  the 
ideal  and  the  universal  elements  in  human  nature 
make  demands  on  them  which  they  are  not  pre- 
pared to  meet.  And  so,  in  their  terror  of  these 
infinities,  they  betake  themselves  to  some  concrete 
"  authority  "  and  ask  it  for  direction  and  promise 
it  implicit  obedience. 

I  do  not  wish  to  suggest  that  faith  in  authority 
is  never  justified.  On  the  contrary,  I  see  clearly 
that  authority  plays,  and  must  play,  a  large  part 
in  human  life.  But  I  contend  that  the  supreme 

1  The  psychological,  not  the  historical  reason, 
no 


DEADENED   BY  DOCILITY  111 

authority  is  that  of  human  nature,  and  that  the 
overlordship  of  this  supreme  authority  should 
never  be  lost  sight  of.  I  do  not  say  that  autocrats, 
teachers,  officers,  States,  Churches,  and  codes  are 
never  to  be  obeyed.  What  I  do  say  is  that  he  who 
obeys  them  must  be  ready — must  at  least  have  it 
in  him — to  ask  them  for  their  credentials.  But 
the  essence  of  docility  is  that,  in  its  recoil  from 
what  is  ultimate,  it  accepts  authority  on  its  own 
valuation,  and  does  not  dream  of  asking  it  for  its 
credentials;  that  it  allows  the  authoritativeness 
of  authority,  the  imperiousness  of  its  demand  for 
submission,  to  guarantee  its  authenticity.  How- 
ever much  an  imperious  formula,  such  as  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord "  or  "  Streng  verboten "  may  en- 
croach on  their  freedom,  the  docile  will  no  more 
think  of  asking  it  for  its  warrant  than  a  child  in 
arms  would  think  of  questioning  the  validity  of 
parental  rule. 

Authority,  when  it  takes  itself  quite  seriously, 
when  it  regards  itself  as  final  and  supreme,  is  called 
dogmatic.  The  dogmatist  is  one  who  says  to  all 
who  come  under  his  control — and  in  his  heart  he 
wishes  all  men  to  come  under  his  control — "  The 
truth  of  things  is  in  my  keeping;  therefore  you 
must  obey  me  and  let  your  life  be  regulated  by  my 
will."  Aristotle  has  told  us  that  "  what  seems  to 
all  men  is."  Dogmatism,  be  it  embodied  in  a 
person  or  in  an  institution,  seeks  to  concentrate 
in  itself  the  authority  which  really  belongs  to  the 
All.  For  "  What  seems  to  all  men  is  "  it  sub- 
stitutes "  What  seems  to  me  is"  \  and  to  this 
proposition  docility  answers  with  alacrity  "  Amen/' 

Does    dogmatism    generate     docility,     or     does 


112         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

docility  generate  dogmatism?  Who  can  answer 
this  question  ?  We  are  apt  to  think  of  dogmatism 
as  active  and  originative,  of  docility  as  passive  and 
helpless.  But  that  is  a  mistake.  Responsibility 
for  the  reciprocal  relation  between  docility  and 
dogmatism  rests  with  the  former  quite  as  much  as 
with  the  latter.1  And  with  the  latter  quite  as  much 
as  with  the  former.  For  dogmatism  is  no  mere 
response  to  the  demand  of  docility  for  instruction 
and  guidance.  The  terror  of  the  unexplored  and 
the  illimitable,  the  desire  for  premature  certitude 
and  repose  of  mind,  which  generate  docility  also 
generate  dogmatism.  The  idea  of  the  Super- 
natural, for  example,  on  which  dogmatism,  with 
the  full  consent  of  docility,  ultimately  bases  its 
demand  for  obedience,  obviously  originates  in 
despair  of  Nature;  and  despair  of  Nature  is  but 
another  name  for  reluctance  to  explore  a  vast  and 
unknown  land.  But  whatever  may  be  obscure 
as  to  the  relation  between  docility  and  dogmatism, 
one  thing  is  certain.  The  two  tendencies  are  ever 
acting  and  reacting  on  one  another.  In  other 
words,  the  antithesis,  as  so  often  happens,  is  con- 
tained within  a  fundamental  unity;  and  when  we 
look  at  human  nature  as  a  whole,  we  see  that  the 
unity  counts  for  more  than  the  antithesis,  and  that 
the  two  opposing  tendencies  are  really  one. 

The  dogmatic  demand  for  docility,  if  carried  far, 

1  So  far  as  the  education  of  the  young  is  concerned,  this 
statement  needs  to  be  qualified.  The  dogmatism  of  parents 
and  teachers  is  largely  active  and  oppressive  (if  not  origina- 
tive), and  the  docility  of  children  is  largely  passive  and 
helpless.  Indeed,  it  is  possible  that  education  is  respon- 
sible in  no  small  measure  for  the  prominence  of  the  docile- 
dogmatic  diathesis  in  human  nature. 


DEADENED   BY  DOCILITY  113 

tends  to  arrest  growth  and  therefore  to  stunt  and 
deaden  life.  Whatever  is  vital,  be  it  limb,  organ, 
sense,  or  faculty,  must  be  exercised  if  it  is  to  make 
healthy  growth.  When  it  has  grown  to  maturity, 
if  maturity  is  attainable,  it  must  continue  to  be 
exercised  if  it  is  to  keep  in  health.  And  if  maturity 
is  unattainable,  as  it  always  is  on  the  higher  planes 
of  man's  being,  the  need  for  continuous  exercise 
is  even  more  urgent,  as  without  it  the  vital  sense 
or  faculty  may  attain  to  a  false  and  wholly 
premature  maturity,  and  so  begin  to  decay  before 
it  has  begun  to  open  out.  Now,  the  function  of 
dogmatism  is  to  do  for  the  docile  what  they  ought 
to  try  to  do  for  themselves,  to  relieve  them  of  the 
task  of  thinking,  valuing,  desiring,  purposing, 
planning,  devising  ways  and  means, — and  to  sub- 
stitute for  these  activities  obedience  to  orders  and 
the  carrying  out  of  minutely  precise  directions. 
That  such  a  regime  must  tend  to  atrophy — through 
disuse — the  higher  senses  and  faculties  of  those  who 
have  to  submit  to  it,  is  an  almost  self-evident  truth. 
There  is  one  aspect  of  the  injurious  effect  of 
undue  dogmatic  pressure  to  which  I  must  call 
special  attention.  Just  as  we  steer  our  way  through 
the  material  things  that  surround  us  by  means  of 
our  bodily  senses,  so — to  speak  generally — we  steer 
our  way  through  the  difficulties  and  perplexities 
of  our  highly  complex  life  by  means  of  appropriate 
senses, — faculties  of  immediate  perception  which 
have  executive  faculties  in  close  alliance  with  them. 
These  senses  enable  us  to  see  at  a  glance,  so  to  speak, 
how  the  land  lies  and  how  it  behoves  us  to  act. 
Instead  of  having  to  rely  on  the  conscious  exercise 
of  our  reasoning  powers  or  the  conscious  application 


114        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

of  rules  and  directions,  for  the  solution  of  our 
problems,  we  are  able,  by  the  use  of  these  intuitive 
faculties  to  feel  instinctively  what  the  problems 
involve  and  to  hold  subconscious  intercourse  with 
the  laws  and  principles  that  are  behind  them. 
These  faculties  operate  on  all  the  planes  of  our 
being;  and  the  higher  the  plane  and  therefore  the 
more  complex  the  environment,  the  greater  is  the 
need  for  them.  We  are  not  endowed  with  them 
at  birth,  as  we  are  endowed  with  eyes  and  ears  and 
the  sense  of  touch.  What  we  are  endowed  with 
is  a  general  capacity  for  evolving  appropriate 
senses  in  response  to  the  stimulus  of  an  ever- 
varying  environment.  The  driver  of  a  motor- 
omnibus  evolves  a  sense  for  velocities  and  distances, 
which  enables  him  to  steer  his  bulky  vehicle  in 
safety  through  the  crowded  streets  of  our  large 
towns.  As  each  practical  problem  presents  itself 
for  solution,  his  "  eye  "  makes  the  necessary  calcu- 
lations in  less  than  an  instant,  and  he  acts  accord- 
ingly. He  evolves  this  sense  by  constant  practice. 
In  some  cases  much  practice  is  needed,  in  others 
comparatively  little.  For  driver  differs  from  driver 
in  his  natural  aptitude  for  estimating  velocities 
and  distances.  It  is  the  same  with  all  our  non- 
corporeal  senses.  Whatever  may  be  our  environ- 
ment, be  it  narrow  or  wide,  special  or  general, 
material  or  spiritual,  if  we  are  to  adapt  ourselves 
to  it  and  react  on  it  successfully,  a  sense  for  its 
laws  and  properties  must  be  developed  by  practice. 
Some  of  us  are  able  to  evolve  such  senses  more 
quickly  and  easily  than  others.  But  in  no  case 
can  practice  be  dispensed  with.  And  in  no  case 
will  practice  be  wasted. 


DEADENED    BY   DOCILITY  115 

As  examples  of  senses  which  operate  on  the 
higher  planes  of  life,  we  may  instance  political 
sagacity,  social  tact,  "  commonsense  ",  conscience, 
the  sense  of  proportion,  the  sense  of  humour,  the 
sense  of  honour,  the  sense  of  value,  imagination, 
sympathy,  insight  into  character,  the  artistic  sense 
with  its  many  sub-senses,  the  "  illative  sense," 
and  the  "  intuition  of  totality."  Then  there 
are  the  gifts  for  languages,  for  literary  form,  for 
mathematics,  for  scientific  research,  and  others, 
each  of  which  centres  in  a  special  sense,  which 
again  has  an  almost  limitless  capacity  for  evolving 
sub -senses. 

When  I  say  that  we  solve  the  problems  of  life 
by  means  of  appropriate  senses,  I  do  not  wish  to 
imply  that  we  are  to  rely  wholly,  or  even  largely, 
on  the  intuitions  of  genius,  on  sudden  inspirations, 
or  on  occult  powers  of  divination,  and  that  therefore 
study  and  forethought  can  be  dispensed  with. 
Far  from  it.  I  have  said  that  our  senses  are  evolved 
by  constant  practice.  I  need  scarcely  add  that 
in  many  cases  the  practice  must  be  based  on 
systematic  study.  But  though  study,  with  the 
knowledge  to  which  it  gives  access  and  the  prepara- 
tion fo'r  action  which  it  makes  possible,  may  be 
indispensable,  it  will  as  a  rule  serve  us  best,  not  by 
providing  us  with  rules  and  directions  which  we 
can  consciously  follow,  but  by  adding  strength, 
elasticity,  and  subtlety  to  the  particular  sense  or 
senses.  In  many  cases  study  itself  must  be  a  more 
or  less  subconscious  process,  scarcely  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  careful  practice.  In  other  cases, 
though  it  may  be  consciously  pursued,  it  must  not 
be  consciously  directed  towards  practical  ends. 


116        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

In  few  cases  can  we  deliberately  make  use  of  it 
when  the  time  for  action  approaches.  When  the 
graver  problems  of  life  have  to  be  solved,  the  fruits 
of  our  studies  must  have  passed  into  our  spiritual 
nerves,  to  be  transmitted,  when  the  need  arises, 
to  our  desire,  our  conscience,  and  our  will,  just  as 
the  experiences  of  the  practised  motor-bus  driver 
have  passed  into  his  physical  nerves,  to  be  trans- 
mitted, when  the  need  arises,  to  his  eyes  and  his 
hands.  If  the  driver  of  a  motor-bus  tried  to  steer 
his  way  through  the  crowded  streets  by  following 
the  directions  of  an  elaborate  handbook  drawn  up 
for  him  by  some  over-paternal  civic  authority, 
instead  of  trusting  to  his  trained  sense  for  velocities 
and  distances,  he  and  his  passengers  would  speedily 
come  to  grief.  For,  in  the  first  place,  no  handbook, 
however  elaborate,  could  even  begin  to  solve  his 
problems  for  him.  And,  in  the  second  place,  he 
could  not  consciously  follow  detailed  directions  in 
the  moment  of  action.  Yet  the  problems  which 
he  has  to  solve  are  simple  and  straightforward 
compared  with  those  which  confront  us  in  the  fields 
of  moral,  social,  and  economic  activity,  or  when 
we  are  dealing  with  the  larger  issues  of  life  as  they 
present  themselves  to  us  in  the  fields  of  art,  or 
letters,  or  religion,  or  philosophy. 

But  the  objection  to  reliance  on  rules  and  direc- 
tions in  the  conduct  of  life  is  not  merely  that  they 
seldom  give  us  effective  guidance,  but  also — and 
more  especially — that  reliance  on  them  necessarily 
tends  to  atrophy  the  senses  which  Nature  places 
at  our  disposal,  potentially  if  not  actually,  for  the 
solution  of  our  more  complex  problems.  When 
everything  is  done  by  rule  or  in  obedience  to 


DEADENED   BY  DOCILITY  117 

detailed  directions,  our  intuitive  faculties,  both 
moral  and  mental,  become  superfluous,  and,  being 
no  longer  exercised,  naturally  cease  to  grow. 

Let  me  illustrate  my  meaning  by  reference  to 
a  remarkable  experiment  which  was  made  thousands 
of  years  ago,  and  the  consequences  of  which,  for 
good  or  evil,  are  with  us  still.  The  attempt  to 
regulate  "  conduct  "  in  all  its  details  by  rules  and 
directions,  as,  for  example,  by  a  code  of  law  or  by 
priestly  guidance,  has  often  been  made.  Of  such 
attempts  the  most  thorough  and  systematic,  and 
therefore  the  most  instructive,  is  that  of  Jewish 
legalism.  Never  before  or  since  has  the  apparently 
hopeless  enterprise  of  finding  a  mechanical  sub- 
stitute for  conscience  and  its  associated  senses  been 
so  boldly  conceived  or  so  successfully  undertaken. 
If  we  are  in  any  doubt  as  to  the  effect  of  undue 
dogmatic  pressure  on  the  higher  life  of  man,  we 
cannot  do  better  than  study  the  history  of  Phari- 
saism. We  shall  learn  from  that  history  that 
when  the  relations  between  man  and  man,  as  man, 
come  under  the  control  of  an  external  authority, 
which,  of  inner  necessity,  is  ever  extending  and 
elaborating  its  machinery  of  supervision,  certain 
tendencies  are  sure  to  manifest  themselves.  Con- 
science, the  supreme  moral  faculty  which  co- 
ordinates and  concentrates  in  itself  all  others, 
will  become  rigid,  scrupulous,  casuistical,  losing 
on  the  one  hand  breadth  of  view,  sense  of  propor- 
tion, regard  for  the  larger  issues  of  life,  and  on  the 
other  hand  adaptiveness  to  changing  conditions 
and  sensitiveness  to  moral  influences  and  con- 
siderations. Meticulous  regard  for  the  letter  of  a 
code  of  law  will  take  the  place  of  devotion  to  the 


118        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

spirit  of  a  scheme  of  life.  Correctness  of  outward 
action  will  take  the  place  of  conformity  to  vital 
truth.  Outward  standards,  outward  measures, 
outward  values  will  take  the  place  of  those  which 
are  inward  and  spiritual.  Censorious  and  inquisi- 
torial interference  with  the  private  affairs  of  one's 
neighbour  will  take  the  place  of  sympathetic  insight 
into  his  inner  life.  The  beautiful  saying,  "  Tout 
savoir,  c'est  tout  pardonner  "  will  have  no  meaning 
for  the  legalist ;  and  the  uncharitableness  which  his 
zeal  for  the  law  engenders  will  progressively  widen 
its  sphere.  Imaginative  sympathy  and  the  sense 
of  justice,  without  which  conscience  loses  touch 
with  the  actualities  of  the  moral  world,  will  cease 
to  operate.  Intent  on  achieving  his  own  salvation 
by  correct  outward  action,  the  legalist  will  become 
by  degrees  de-spiritualized  and  de-humanized,  and 
will  at  last  be  in  danger  of  being  sucked  down  into 
the  ever-narrowing  vortex  of  his  own  petty,  self- 
regarding,  self-centred  life.  And,  with  the  loss  of 
the  inward  standard  of  right  and  wrong,  the  con- 
ception of  virtue  as  the  health  of  the  soul  will  be 
perforce  abandoned.  A  man  will  entertain  evil 
desires  and  passions  in  his  heart,  and  yet,  because 
he  lives  correctly,  in  the  sense  of  observing  certain 
rules  and  conventions,  will  pass  as  virtuous,  first 
in  the  eyes  of  those  whose  judgment  he  has  been 
taught  to  value,  and  then  in  his  own  eyes.  Such 
a  man  will  be  no  hypocrite ;  but  he  will  have  sunk 
to  an  even  lower  level  of  self-deception.  Hypocrisy 
has  been  defined  as  the  homage  which  vice  pays  to 
virtue.  When  vice  is  mistaken  for  virtue,  the  need 
for  hypocrisy  ceases;  but  the  loss  of  it  under 
such  conditions  is  a  loss  to  morality,  not  a  gain; 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  119 

for  it  means  that  the  process  of  demoralization  is 
complete. 

If  Pharisaism  has  done  nothing  else  for  mankind, 
it  has  taught  them  that  dogmatic  pressure,  when 
systematically  applied  to  a  plastic  material  which 
cannot  easily  react  against  it,  tends  to  deaden  the  in- 
stinctive and  intuitive  faculties  by  means  of  which 
men  get  into  touch  with  the  deeper  tendencies  of 
Nature,  adapt  themselves  to  a  complex  and  mobile 
environment,  and  regulate  their  conduct ;  and  that 
in  doing  so  it  goes  far  towards  mechanicalizing  life 
and  devitalizing  the  human  spirit.  And  what 
makes  this  lesson  the  more  instructive  is  that  it  is 
possible  to  conceive  of  a  worse  bondage  than  that 
of  the  Law.  If  dogmatic  pressure,  when  applied 
by  the  dead  hand  of  a  code,  can  do  so  much  to 
demoralize  its  victims,  what  might  it  not  do  when 
exerted  by  the  living  will  of  a  despotic  and  inquisi- 
torial State,  and  passively  submitted  to  by  an  ultra- 
docile  people?  For  an  answer  to  this  question  we 
must  turn  to  modern  Germany. 

The  German  citizen  comes  under  the  dogmatic 
pressure  of  the  State,  first  in  the  army  and  then 
in  civil  life.  In  the  army  he  is  subjected  to  the 
strictest,  most  mechanical,  and  most  brutal  dis- 
cipline that  the  world  has  ever  known.  As  a  civilian 
he  comes  under  the  control  of  an  ultra-paternal 
government  which  regulates  his  life  for  him  to  an 
extent  which  no  other  people  would  tolerate,  and 
fences  him  in  with  an  immense  and  ever-growing 
number  of  commands  and  prohibitions  (especially 
the  latter). 

The  tendency  of  dogmatic  pressure  is,   as  has 


120        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

been  said,  to  deaden  sensibility.  By  "  sensibility  " 
I  mean  the  general  capacity  for  evolving  "  senses  " 
in  response  to  the  ever-varying  stimulus  of  ex- 
perience. When  dogmatism  has  things  all  its 
own  way,  the  moulding  pressure  of  authority  on 
the  clay  of  docility  takes  the  place  of  that  interplay 
between  the  stimulus  of  the  environment  and  the 
reaction  of  the  organism,  which  is  of  the  essence 
of  life.  If  dogmatic  pressure  tends  to  deaden 
sensibility  in  general,  it  tends  more  particularly 
to  deaden  two  master  senses,  on  the  healthy  develop- 
ment of  which  depends  the  well-being  of  human 
nature  as  a  whole, — the  sense  of  individuality  and 
the  feeling  for  the  ideal.  These  two  senses  are 
closely  allied ;  and  if  either  is  deadened  or  otherwise 
injured,  the  loss  to  it  is  sure,  sooner  or  later,  to  be 
felt  by  the  other.  Deep  down  in  the  heart  of  each 
of  us  is  the  feeling  that  beyond  our  best  there  is 
still  a  better;  that  beyond  all  ends  of  action, 
beyond  the  whole  hierarchy  of  ends  and  motives, 
there  is  a  supreme  end  which  we  can  discover  only 
by  trying  to  realize  it  while  it  is  yet  undiscovered; 
that  beyond  all  visible  authority  there  is  an  in- 
visible authority  which  has  the  first  and  last  call 
on  our  allegiance;  that  beyond  the  various  com- 
munities, narrow  and  wide,  which  claim  our  de- 
votion there  is  a  larger  community — the  Kingdom 
of  Man,  widening  out  into  the  Kingdom  of  God — 
which,  when  it  claims  our  devotion,  takes  precedence 
of  all  others.  This  is  the  feeling  for  the  ideal. 
Closely  connected  with  it  is  the  sense  of  individuality, 
the  feeling  that  each  of  us  must  pursue  the  ideal 
by  a  pathway  of  his  own;  that  in  himself,  in  his 
own  individual  existence,  he  is  a  starting-point 


DEADENED   BY  DOCILITY  121 

for  the  great  quest, — a  starting-point  which  differs 
appreciably  from  all  other  starting-points  and 
which  therefore  necessitates  a  different  line  of 
approach  to  the  common  goal;  that  in  the  sur- 
render of  his  individuality,  the  merging  of  it  in 
the  ideal  or  universal  life,  he  must  exercise  his 
individuality  and  so  make  the  surrender  of  it  a 
genuine  act  of  self-sacrifice, — a  vital,  not  a  merely 
mechanical  process.  In  other  and  fewer  words,  we 
feel  instinctively  that  salvation  is  to  be  achieved 
only  by  transcending  all  known  horizons,  and  that 
in  this  great  adventure  each  of  us  must  fare  forth 
by  himself.  By  some  of  us  this  twofold  feeling 
is  more  or  less  consciously  realized.  For  others 
it  expresses  itself  in  certain  axiomata  media.  In 
others,  again,  it  hides  from  thought  in  the  remoter 
recesses  of  the  soul,  and  announces  itself  only  in 
moments  of  supreme  crisis,  and  then  as  an  inspiring 
and  transforming  influence  rather  than  as  a  distinct 
conception  of  life. 

Now,  if  dogmatic  pressure  as  such  tends  to  kill 
idealism  and  crush  out  individuality,  it  is  easy  to 
see  that,  when  the  source  of  dogmatic  pressure  is 
an  autocratic  and  inquisitorial  State,  this  tendency 
may  well  become  irresistibly  strong.  For  in  any 
case  the  State  is  entitled  to  claim  a  large  measure 
of  our  allegiance  and  devotion ;  and  the  self  which 
responds  to  this  claim — the  communal  self,  as  I  have 
elsewhere  called  it — is  therefore  at  all  times  a 
formidable  rival  to  the  ideal  and  the  individual 
selves.  But  if  the  ascendancy  of  the  State  should 
become  so  pronounced  that  at  last  a  claim  to  the 
whole  of  our  allegiance  and  devotion  would  be 
openly  advanced  and  tacitly  admitted,  the  doom 


122         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

of  idealism  and  of  individuality  would  have  been 
pronounced.  For  on  the  one  hand  the  welfare- 
real  or  imagined — of  the  State  would  have  become 
for  the  citizen  the  final  end  of  moral  action;  and 
on  the  other  hand  he  would  serve  the  State  best — 
so  he  and  it  would  argue — by  placing  himself 
unreservedly  in  its  hands  and  allowing  it  to  order 
all  the  details  of  his  life. 

This  is  what  has  happened,  or  is  in  course  of 
happening,  in  Germany.  The  theory  of  the  State 
which  Treitschke  was  one  of  the  first  to  formulate 
has  won  general  acceptance.  According  to  this 
theory,  the  State  has  the  right  to  demand  unques- 
tioning obedience  from  the  people,  its  right  being 
either  inherent  in  its  might  or  (more  probably) 
derived  from  a  supernatural  source.  The  State 
is  also  exempt  from  moral  obligation;  or  rather, 
it  has  a  higher  morality  of  its  own,  "  the  ethics  of 
force  and  natural  expansion."  This  theory  goes 
far  towards  making  an  end  of  morality.  It  is  true 
that  General  Bernhardi  and  other  followers  of 
Treitschke  contend  that  moral  considerations  bind 
individuals  though  they  do  not  bind  States.  But 
it  is  useless  to  tell  the  individual  that  he  is  to  obey 
the  laws  of  morality,  if  at  the  same  time  you  tell 
him  that,  in  the  event  of  a  conflict  between  the 
demands  of  the  moral  law  and  the  demands  of  the 
State,  the  former  must  yield  to  the  latter.  When 
the  Germans  invaded  Belgium,  a  German  professor 
might  well  have  argued  that  the  devastating  of 
the  invaded  country  and  the  slaughtering  and  ter- 
rorizing of  its  inhabitants  served  the  interests  of  the 
Fatherland,  and  that  therefore,  since  the  welfare 
of  his  country  was  for  the  German  citizen  the 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  123 

supreme  end  of  moral  action,  it  was  morally  right 
for  the  invaders  to  break  every  established  moral 
law.  Such  a  conclusion  would  have  been  a  legiti- 
mate inference  from  the  Treitschkean  theory  of 
the  State.  But  if  a  nation  allowed  itself  to  be 
convinced  by  this  hypothetical  argument,  its 
stream  of  moral  motive  force  would  begin  to  be 
poisoned  at  its  fountain-head,  and  it  would  become 
possible  for  its  soldiers  and  citizens  to  perpetrate 
nameless  atrocities,  and  yet  believe  in  all  seriousness 
that  they  were  doing  right. 

We  see  from  this  example  that  when  the  State 
idealizes  itself  and  imposes  its  self-idealization  on 
its  subjects,  the  divine  ideal — the  rightful  overlord 
of  all  moral  motives — is  dethroned  in  the  heart 
and  conscience  of  the  people,  and  a  non-moral  or 
immoral  usurper  takes  its  place  and  determines 
henceforth  the  nation's  standards  of  right  and 
wrong.  Under  such  a  regime  the  morals  of  a  nation 
might  sink  at  last  to  the  level  of  those  of  a  well- 
disciplined  pirate  crew,  who  served  their  captain 
with  such  zeal  and  devotion  that  they  were  ready 
to  rob  and  ravish  and  murder  at  his  bidding.  The 
Jesuits  are  said  to  have  taught  that  the  end  justifies 
the  means;  and  men  have  felt  instinctively  that 
this  is  a  dangerous  and  demoralizing  doctrine. 
The  doctrine  is  not  necessarily  false ;  but  men  have 
done  well  to  distrust  it.  If  the  end  is  to  justify 
the  means  it  mus,t  be  an  ideal-  end — infinite  and 
unattainable,  a 

"something  evermore  about  to  be"; 

for  then  the  means  will  move  forward  with  the 
ever-receding  ideal,  and  in  doing  so  will  pr ogres- 


124         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

sively  transform  and  purify  themselves  by  the 
force  of  their  own  inevitable  expansion.  Self- 
realization,  for  example,  is  an  end  which  justifies 
whatever  means  may  be  taken  to  achieve  it,  so 
long — but  only  so  long — as  the  infinitude  of  the 
self  is  kept  steadily  in  view.  But  to  say  that  a 
finite  end,  such  as  the  ascendancy  of  Germany  over 
other  nations,  or  the  triumph  of  the  Catholic  Church 
over  other  churches,  justifies  any  and  every  means, 
is  to  subordinate  the  whole  to  the  part,  the  interests 
of  Humanity  to  the  supposed  interests  of  a  nation 
or  a  church ;  and  to  do  this  is  to  give  authoritative 
sanction  to  every  anti-human  lust  and  passion, 
and  to  open  the  door  to  every  form  of  immorality. 
The  tendency  of  dogmatic  pressure — a  pressure 
which  reaches  its  maximum  when  it  emanates 
from  an  autocratic  State — is  to  crush  individuality 
and  pervert  idealism.  In  crushing  individuality, 
with  all  that  individuality  implies — initiative,  self- 
reliance,  independence  of  thought,  responsibility 
to  conscience,  force  of  character — dogmatic  pressure 
strangles  spiritual  life  at  its  outflow  from  each 
individual  source.  In  perverting  idealism  it  poisons 
the  subterranean  reservoirs  which  are  the  ultimate 
fountain-head  of  spiritual  life.  But  the  deadening 
of  moral  sensibility  means  more  than  this.  In- 
dividuality and  idealism  may  be  regarded  as  the 
poles  of  moral  sensibility.  Between  these  poles 
come  the  moral  faculties,  by  means  of  which 
ordinary  men  regulate  their  conduct  in  the  ordinary 
affairs  of  life.  These  faculties  are  either  sympa- 
thetic or  intuitive,  or  both.  The  sympathetic 
faculties  enable  a  man  to  enter  into  the  lives  of  others 
and  look  at  things,  when  differences  arise  between 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  125 

him  and  them,  from  their  point  of  view  as  well  as 
from  his  own.  The  intuitive  faculties,  which  are 
ever  evolving  themselves  in  response  to  the  stimulus 
of  experience,  enable  a  man  to  discern  the  moral 
fitness  of  any  proposed  action  or  course  of  action. 
Whatever  tends  to  deaden  these  faculties,  to  dull 
the  sensitiveness  of  the  moral  finger-tips,  deprives 
a  man  to  that  extent  of  the  guidance  of  those 
subtle  influences  which  the  collective  life  of 
Humanity  has  stored  up  in  his  spiritual  nerves  and 
muscles,  and  predisposes  him  to  follow  the  direc- 
tion of  any  self-appointed  guide  who  can  bring 
pressure  to  bear  on  him,  —  predisposes  him,  in 
other  words,  to  substitute  responsibility  to  external 
authority  for  responsibility  to  his  own  inward  light. 
This  externalization  of  life  is  a  goal  on  which 
other  roads  converge.  Whenever  dogmatic  pressure 
is  strong  and  steady,  there  is  a  tendency  for  the 
verdict  of  authority — external,  visible,  embodied 
authority — to  take  the  place  of  the  verdict  of 
experience,  of  life,  of  nature.  For  the  docile 
instinctively  defer  to  the  dogmatist,  accept  his 
ruling,  make  him  their  model.  If  he  is  an  officer  or 
a  teacher,  his  estimate  of  worth  is  regarded  as  final 
and  decisive.  If  he  is  an  examiner,  his  certificate 
determines  a  man's  "  station  and  degree."  Under 
such  a  regime  the  sense  of  intrinsic  reality  is  gradually 
lost.  Class  lists,  orders  of  merit,  prizes,  medals, 
titles,  and  the  like  interpose  themselves  between 
the  soul  and  the  ultimate  realities  of  existence. 
What  he  is  reputed  to  be  is  a  man's  chief  concern, 
not  what  he  really  is.  Now,  the  intrinsically  real 
has  another  name — the  ideal.  It  is  because  we 
feel  in  our  hearts  that  things  are  what  they  are, 


126        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

not  what  they  seem  to  be  or  are  said  to  be,  that  we 
embark  on  that  quest  of  the  ideal  of  which  I  have 
already  spoken.  And  because  the  ideal,  the  thing 
in  itself,  is  unattainable,  the  quest  of  it  keeps  us 
in  touch  with  the  infinite,  and  so  keeps  us  always 
immature,  always  on  the  ascending  curve  of  life, 
and  therefore  truly  alive.  When  external  authority 
takes  the  place  of  the  real  and  the  ideal,  life  shrinks 
within  finite  limits.  Reality  is  regarded  as  measur- 
able and  ponderable;  scales  of  value  which  are 
outward,  finite,  and  mechanically  adjustable  take 
the  place  of  those  which  are  inward,  infinite,  and 
self-adjusting.  The  consequences  of  this  compul- 
sory narrowing  of  one's  spiritual  horizon  are  far- 
reaching.  He  who  lives  for  a  self  which  can  be 
weighed  in  outward  scales  and  measured  by  out- 
ward standards,  lives  for  a  finite  self;  but  to  live 
for  a  finite  self  is  egoism ;  and  egoism  is  the  beginning 
and  end  of  immorality. 

The  externalizing  tendencies  of  dogmatic  pressure 
will  be  raised  to  their  highest  power  when  the 
source  of  pressure  is  the  central  authority  of  the 
community  to  which  one  belongs.  On  this  point 
the  evidence  of  those  who  know  Germany  is  con- 
clusive. In  no  other  country  is  the  externalization 
of  life  so  complete.  In  no  other  country  is  caste 
feeling  so  intense  or  so  all-controlling.  In  no  other 
country  is  the  cult  of  the  uniform  carried  to  such 
extraordinary  lengths.  "  The  German  nation," 
said  Bismarck,  "  is  a  race  of  non-commissioned 
officers;  every  one  is  eager  to  get  the  stripes.  On 
an  average  every  man  in  public  life  has  only  that 
degree  of  self-reliance  which  corresponds  to  his 
official  hall-mark,  to  the  conditions  of  his  official 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  127 

life  and  to  his  orders.  Exceptions  to  this  are 
praiseworthy  but  rare."  So  deep  is  the  average 
German's  veneration  for  hall-marks,  so  much  does 
he  care  for  what  he  is  reputed  to  be,  so  little  does 
he  care  for  what  he  really  is,  that  if  you  wish  to 
conciliate  him  you  give  him  a  title  higher  than 
that  which  is  actually  his.  "  If  a  German  wants 
the  waiter,"  said  Mr.  Austin  Harrison,  "  he  calls 
out  '  Herr  Ober '  (head  waiter) ,  or  the  waiter, 
feeling  himself  insulted,  refuses  to  come  and  rolls 
his  eyes."  "  This  curious  vanity,"  says  the  same 
writer,  "  is  characteristic  of  all  classes.  If  you 
want  to  please  a  German  you  address  him  as  '  Von  ' 
when  you  know  he  is  a  plebeian.  You  call  a  youth 
an  '  assessor  '  when  you  are  perfectly  aware  he  has 
not  yet  passed  his  examinations  ...  if  you  want 
to  get  anything  out  of  a  German  by  far  the  quickest 
and  most  practical  way  is  to  introduce  into  the 
conversation  such  a  phrase  as  '  My  dear  Count/  ' 
These  are  childish  follies,  of  which  Germany, 
though  she  has  more  than  her  share,  has  no  mono- 
poly ;  but  the  excessive  regard  for  external  authority, 
with  its  labels  and  hall-marks,  which  they  indicate, 
has  a  darker  side  to  it.  The  distrust  of  human 
nature  which  is  at  the  heart  of  the  German  ideal  of 
life,  and  which  has  generated  the  cult  of  the  label 
and  the  hall-mark,  is  ever  tending  to  reproduce 
and  intensify  itself.  The  more  thoroughly  a  man's 
life  is  ordered  for  him,  the  less  capable  does  he 
become  of  ordering  it  for  himself.  The  standards 
by  which  his  conduct  is  regulated — the  standards 
of  social,  moral,  and  even  spiritual  worth — pass 
under  the  control  of  the  central  authority  and 
influence  him  from  without  instead  of  from  within. 


128        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

If  I  am  to  do  this  thing,  if  I  am  not  to  do  that 
thing,  the  State,  which  fences  me  in  with  commands 
and  prohibitions,  must  have  reasons  of  its  own  for 
issuing  the  directions  which  I  have  to  obey;  and 
those  reasons  must  be  determined  by  standards 
which  are  in  the  keeping  of  the  State,  and  which 
have  therefore  the  validity  of  might,  if  not  of  right. 
And  the  more  the  State  encroaches  on  my  freedom, 
the  more  jealously  will  it  guard  its  moral  weights 
and  measures,  and,  since  willing  obedience  is  worth 
more  to  it  than  enforced  submission,  the  more 
strenuously  will  it  endeavour  to  impose  those 
standards  on  my  reason  and  my  conscience,  and  to 
regulate  my  views  of  life  and  my  consequent  aims 
and  ambitions  as  well  as  the  details  of  my  conduct. 
Hence  it  is  that  in  Germany  the  State  takes  care 
(as  we  have  seen)  to  control  the  Church,  the  Press, 
the  Universities,  and  the  schools,  and,  through  the 
medium  of  these  moulds  and  organs  of  opinion, 
to  suggest  to  the  people  what  they  are  to  think, 
to  believe,  and  to  say.  And  the  pity  of  it  is  that 
he  whose  thoughts,  beliefs,  and  words  are  habitually 
suggested — not  to  say  dictated — to  him,  comes  at 
last  to  regard  those  thoughts,  beliefs,  and  words 
as  his  own.  When  this  point  has  been  reached, 
when  a  man  honestly  believes  that  what  has  been 
virtually  forced  upon  him  from  without  has  come 
to  him  from  within,  the  triumph  of  authority  over 
the  inner  life  of  the  soul  is  complete.  The  pressure 
of  the  drill-sergeant  is  not  brought  to  bear  on  the 
German  citizen  in  civil  life.  But  it  is  possible  that 
the  brutal  discipline  which  makes  the  German 
soldier  an  automaton  is  less  harmful  (in  the  deeper 
sense  of  the  word)  than  the  insidious  pressure  on 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  129 

the  civilian  which  enables  the  State  to  take  posses- 
sion of  his  moral  and  spiritual  springs  of  action. 

In  the  act  of  deadening  sensibility  and  exter- 
nalizing life,  autocratic  authority  weakens  the  will. 
The  truth  of  this  proposition  is  self-evident.  The 
pressure  which  makes  a  man  dependent  on  others 
for  rules  and  directions  necessarily  weakens  his 
will.  So  does  the  pressure  which  makes  a  man 
dependent  on  others  for  his  ideals  and  standards. 
The  former  deprives  him  of  the  power  of  choice 
at  the  partings  of  the  byways  of  life.  The  latter, 
at  the  partings  of  the  highways.  And  it  stands  to 
reason  that  the  man  who  is  not  allowed  to  exercise 
his  power  of  choice  will  lose  his  force  of  will.  It 
stands  to  reason,  in  other  words,  that  the  man  who 
is  over-disciplined  by  authority — whether  directly 
or  indirectly  matters  little — wiU  lose  the  power 
of  disciplining  himself.  For  the  restraining  and 
directing  forces  which  come  from  within  will  natur- 
ally cease  to  operate  when  life  is  regulated,  both 
as  a  whole  and  in  all  its  details,  by  systematic 
pressure  from  without. 

Thus,  from  many  quarters  demoralizing  influences 
are  brought  to  bear  on  the  docile  German.  His 
individuality  is  crushed  by  the  inquisitorial  despot- 
ism of  the  State  and  by  the  excessive  centralization 
which  is  of  the  essence  of  its  administration.  His 
ideals  are  perverted,  not  only  by  the  imperious 
demands  on  his  devotion  which  the  State  is  always 
making,  but  also  and  more  particularly  by  the 
control  which  it  has  secured,  through  many  agencies, 
of  his  inward  springs  of  action.  The  general  deaden- 
ing of  sensibility  which  is  produced  by  dogmatic 
pressure  weakens  his  sympathies  and  blunts  his 
K 


130        THE  NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

moral  intuitions.  The  externalization  of  life,  which 
is  an  effect  of  the  same  cause,  materializes  his  aims, 
corrupts  his  motives,  and  debases  his  scale  of  values. 
And  the  rigid  discipline  which  orders  his  goings 
for  him  and  so  deprives  him  of  freedom  of  choice, 
fatally  weakens  his  will.  A  general  lowering  of 
moral  vitality  is  the  natural  resultant  of  these 
converging  forces.  This  is  the  malady  from  which 
one  would  expect  the  over-docile  German  to  suffer. 
Does  he  suffer  from  it,  and,  if  so,  by  what  symptoms 
does  it  reveal  its  presence  ?  That  his  moral  vitality 
has  been  seriously  lowered  is  suggested,  to  say 
the  least,  by  two  significant  symptoms, — abnormal 
criminality  at  home,  abnormal  savagery  in  the  field. 
This  is  a  provisional  answer  to  my  question.  A 
fuller  answer  will  be  given  in  the  next  chapter. 

The  ubiquitous  pressure  exercised  by  a  despotic 
State  may  be  expected  to  produce  an  effect  on  the 
mentality  of  the  people  analogous  to  that  which  it 
produces  on  their  morals.1  In  the  one  sphere,  as 
in  the  other,  the  tendency  of  strong  dogmatic 
pressure  is  to  deaden  sensibility.  In  the  mental 
sphere  sensibility  shows  itself  as  initiative,  as 
resourcefulness,  as  alertness,  as  adaptability  to 
new  conditions,  as  responsiveness  to  new  impres- 
sions and  appeals,  as  imaginativeness,  as  originality, 
as  genius.  The  man  whose  mental  sensibility  is 

1  I  do  not  forget  that  the  mental  and  moral  spheres 
overlap  and  even  interpenetrate  one  another;  that  a 
moral  judgment,  for  example,  is  the  outcome  of  a  process 
which  is  largely  mental.  The  distinction  between  the 
two  spheres  is,  however,  a  real  one ;  and  it  will  be  con- 
venient to  keep  it  in  mind. 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  131 

unimpaired,  when  he  finds  himself  in  a  tight  place, 
will  make  a  rapid  survey  of  the  whole  situation, 
and  adjust  his  plans  and  adapt  his  resources  to 
the  unexpected  difficulties  that  confront  him. 
The  man  whose  sensibility  has  been  deadened  by 
dogmatic  pressure  will  ask  himself  what  rules  or 
what  prohibitions  meet  the  case.  For  it  is  only  by 
multiplying  rules  and  prohibitions,  that  the  despotic 
State  can  control  the  life  of  the  citizen;  and  the 
more  it  multiplies  rules  and  prohibitions,  the  more 
dependent  on  State-control  will  the  citizen  become. 
The  man  whose  goings  are  habitually  ordered  for 
him  will  be  lost,  unless  guidance  is  quickly  forth- 
coming, when  he  is  confronted  by  a  sudden  emer- 
gency or  even  by  an  unexpected  conjunction  of 
circumstances.  That  guidance  should  always  be 
forthcoming  is  of  course  the  dream  of  the  dogmatist, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  typical  case  of  the  Jewish 
Law;  but  it  is  a  dream  which  cannot  be  fulfilled. 
Neither  the  ingenuity  of  the  casuist  in  morals  nor  the 
forethought  of  the  General  Staff  in  warfare  can  cope 
with  the  complexity  and  subtlety  of  Nature.  But 
this  difficulty,  instead  of  acting  as  a  deterrent  to  dog- 
matism, does  but  incite  it  to  renewed  effort.  The 
deadening  of  mentality  is  a  contingency  which  it 
would  welcome  rather  than  deprecate.  For  it  is  to 
the  interest  of  despotic  authority,  whether  military 
or  civil,  that  intelligence  and  initiative  should  be 
concentrated  in  a  small  circle  of  "  experts/'  inde- 
pendence of  thought  and  action  being  the  last 
thing  that  it  can  tolerate  in  its  subjects. 

In  the  German  army  this  circle  of  experts — small 
at  the  best — seems  to  grow  smaller  from  year  to 
year.  That  the  army  is  a  wonderfully  planned 


132        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

and  highly  efficient  machine  goes  without  saying  : 
and  machinery  is  the  expression  of  intelligence  in 
terms  of  what  is  outward  and  material.  It  follows 
that  of  the  intelligence  which  plans  and  pro- 
vides there  is  an  abundance  in  the  German 
army,  and  that  much  of  that  intelligence  is  of  a 
high  order.  But  it  is  confined  for  the  most  part 
to  the  General  Staff,  to  the  officers  of  higher  rank, 
and  to  the  great  firms  which  manufacture  the 
munitions  of  war — guns,  shells,  Zeppelins,  poison- 
ous gases,  and  the  like.1  In  the  officers  of  lower 
grade,  intelligence,  with  its  practical  counterpart- 
initiative,  is  not  encouraged.  In  the  rank-and-file 
it  is  ruthlessly  repressed.  In  this  respect  there 
has  been  in  recent  years  reaction  rather  than  pro- 
gress. In  the  war  of  1870  an  attempt  was  made 
to  encourage  initiative,  not  only  among  the  officers, 
but  even  to  some  extent  among  the  rank-and-file. 
The  experiment  has  not  been  repeated.  The 
freedom  which  had  been  given  to  the  officers  has 
been  in  large  measure  taken  away  from  them.  The 
open  formation  in  which  the  soldiers  frequently 
fought  in  1870 — a  formation  which  tends  to  throw 
the  individual  on  his  own  resources — has  been 
entirely  abandoned.  The  officers  are  said  to  have 
abused  their  freedom.  Finding  that  they  were 
expected  to  exercise  initiative,  they  exercised  it, 
with  true  Prussian  docility,  in  season  and  out  of 
season,  and  the  result  was  that  they  made  many 
rash  and  foolish  moves.  The  truth  is  that  the 
exercise  of  initiative  is  foreign  to  the  Prussian 
character  and  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  Prussian 

1  Strictly  speaking,  these    firms   do  not  belong  to  the 
army ;   but  in  point  of  fact  they  are  a  vital  part  of  it. 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  133 

tradition.  The  typical  Prussian  officer,  as  Bismarck 
himself  admitted,  "  goes  to  meet  certain  death  in 
the  service  with  the  simple  words  '  at  your  orders/ 
but  if  he  has  to  act  on  his  own  responsibility,  dreads 
the  criticism  of  his  superior  officer  or  of  the  world 
more  than  death,  even  to  the  extent  of  allowing 
his  energy  and  correct  judgment  to  be  impaired 
by  the  fear  of  blame  and  reproof."  The  reason 
why  the  open  formation  was  abolished  has  already 
been  set  forth.1  Meckel  was  allowed  to  undo  the 
work  of  the  great  Moltke,  partly  because  the  open 
formation  had  undoubtedly  led  to  much  skulking, 
partly — and  perhaps  chiefly — because  its  retention 
would  have  made  it  difficult  for  the  army  to  be 
thoroughly  mechanicalized.  "  On  no  account  may  f 
he  (the  soldier)  act  and  think  for  himself.  He  is 
simply  there  to  do  as  he  is  told."  But  where  the 
open  formation  is  adopted,  the  soldier  must  occa- 
sionally act  and  think  for  himself.  And  he  cannot 
always  do  as  he  is  told,  for  the  obvious  reason  that 
the  necessary  orders  are  not  always  forthcoming. 
It  is  only  as  the  master  of  a  smoothly  working 
machine  that  a  central  authority  can  fully  satisfy 
its  "  lust  of  sway  " ;  and  if  an  army  or  any  other 
corporate  body  is  to  become  such  a  machine,  it  is 
essential  that  its  component  parts  should  as  far  as 
possible  move  automatically,  that  they  should  not 
be  allowed  to  have  minds  or  wills  of  their  own. 

If  the  pressure  of  dogmatic  authority  makes  for 
automatism  on  the  lower  levels  of  mentality,  it 
makes  for  pedantry — for  excessive  deference  to 
rules,  precedents,  and  established  conclusions — on 
the  higher.  In  no  army  is  the  conduct  of  war  so 
1  Chap.  II.  pp.  42-4. 


134        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

pedantic  as  in  the  German ;  and  in  the  atmosphere 
of  pedantry  genius  withers  and  high  ability  makes 
but  meagre  growth.  Such  originality  as  the  German 
War  Lords  have  shown  during  the  present  war 
has  taken  the  form  of  making  guns  and  mortars  of 
unprecedented  type  and  calibre,  of  using  vitriol, 
"  liquid  fire  "  and  poisonous  gas  as  weapons  of 
attack,  and  of  contriving  various  mechanical  devices 
in  which  the  industry  and  ingenuity  of  the  scientific 
expert  have  been  turned  to  profitable  account. 
And  the  successes  which  Germany  has  achieved 
have  been  for  the  most  part  triumphs  of  military 
technique,  of  administrative  machinery,  and  of 
applied  science,  and  may  be  regarded  as  the  reward 
of  years  of  methodical  preparation  for  war.  Of 
such  successes  there  have  been  many.  But  the 
larger  plans  of  the  General  Staff  have  nearly  all 
miscarried;  and  no  general  of  superlative  ability 
has  yet  come  to  the  front. 

As  it  is  in  the  army,  so  it  is  in  civil  life.  State 
supervision,  when  carried  to  excess,  makes  for 
automatism  on  the  lower  levels  of  mentality  and  for 
pedantry  on  the  higher.  "It  is  natural,"  says 
Mr.  W.  H.  Dawson,  "  to  compare  the  German  with 
the  English  workman ;  and  the  first  difference  which 
such  a  comparison  brings  to  light  is  the  German's 
lack  of  independence.  He  both  submits  to  an 
endless  amount  of  direction,  and  he  needs  it." 
Like  the  soldier,  the  workman  is  "  there  to  do  as  he 
is  told."  And  his  loss  of  initiative  is  accompanied 
by  the  loss  of  intelligence, — the  active,  originative 
intelligence  which  strikes  out  new  paths  for  itself, 
not  the  passive  intelligence  which  merely  takes  in 
what  is  explained  to  it.  In  the  fields  of  learning 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  135 

and  research,  of  pure  science,  of  applied  science, 
of  industry  and  commerce,  German  patience, 
accuracy,  and  thoroughness  are  proverbial,  and 
the  German  capacity  for  organization  has  produced 
remarkable  results.  But  even  the  leaders  in  those 
fields  of  activity  are  wanting  in  originality.  The 
great  explorers  of  unknown  lands  have  nearly  all 
been  non-German.  So  have  the  great  pioneers 
in  science,  and  the  great  inventors  in  the  various 
departments  of  applied  science.  The  plodding 
German  follows  in  the  wake  of  these  pathfinders, 
and  secures,  in  his  own  interest,  the  ground  that 
they  have  won;  just  as  in  the  field  of  industrial 
activity  he  appropriates  the  brilliant  ideas  of 
foreign  inventors,  and  turns  them  to  profitable 
account.  In  criticism — a  word  which  covers  many 
spheres  of  intellectual  effort — he  combines  enormous 
erudition  with  poverty,  or  at  best  mediocrity,  of 
thought.  In  France  the  critical  spirit  always 
burns  with  a  clear  flame;  in  Germany  the  fire  is 
in  danger  of  being  put  out  by  its  own  excess  of  fuel. 
In  recent  years  I  have  read  three  important  works 
by  German  critics  of  very  high  repute;  and  in 
each  case  I  felt  that  the  writer  was  at  heart  a 
pedant  and  that  he  could  not  see  the  wood  for  the 
trees. 

But  we  need  not  compare  Germany  with  other 
countries.  If  we  would  estimate  the  respective 
effects  of  rigid  State  control  and  reasonable  freedom 
on  mental  development,  we  have  but  to  compare 
Prussia  with  non-Prussian  Germany  during  the 
period  of  Germany's  intellectual  ascendancy  (1750- 
1870),  and  the  Prussianized  'Germany  of  the  past 
forty-five  years  with  her  former  non-Prussianized 


136        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

self.  Between  the  years  1750  and  1870  Germany 
produced  four  great  men  of  letters.  Not  one  was 
a  Prussian.  She  produced  many  great  musicians. 
Not  one  was  a  Prussian.  She  produced  three  great 
historians.  Not  one  was  a  Prussian.  She  produced 
many  great  thinkers.  Two  were  Prussians — Kant 
and  Schopenhauer — but  Kant  was  half  Scotch, 
and  Schopenhauer  was  the  least  Prussian  of  Prus- 
sians and  had  no  honour  in  his  own  country.  If 
we  except  statesmen  and  soldiers,  we  shall  find 
that  Saxony  has  produced  a  far  larger  number  of 
great  men  than  Prussia.  And  even  in  statesmen 
and  soldiers  Prussia  has  not  much  to  boast  of. 
She  has  one  great  soldier — Frederic  II — and  one 
great  statesman — Bismarck — to  her  credit.  The 
other  great  German  soldier — Moltke — was  a  Meck- 
lenburger  by  birth  and  a  Dane  by  education.  And 
we  have  seen  that  the  statesmen  who  resuscitated 
Prussia  after  her  downfall  in  1806  were  all  non- 
Prussians. 

After  the  war  of  1870  Germany,  as  a  whole,  came 
under  the  influence  of  the  Prussian  drill-sergeant; 
and  as  his  deadening  pressure  began  to  make  itself 
felt,  her  activities  in  the  fields  of  literature,  music, 
and  thought  began  to  die  away,  and  her  energies 
to  be  diverted  into  other  and  more  material  channels. 
In  music,  in  which  she  once  reigned  without  a  rival, 
the  sceptre  has  been  wrested  from  her  by  Russia. 
In  the  fields  of  literature  and  speculative  thought 
she  has  few  names  of  distinction  and  none  of  the 
first  order.  Her  greatest  men  of  letters  no  more 
belong  to  the  royal  line  of  Goethe  and  Heine  than 
do  her  greatest  thinkers  to  the  royal  line  of  Kant 
and  Hegel.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  forty-five  years 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  187 

since  1870  have  been  singularly  barren  of  achieve- 
ment except  in  the  spheres  of  industrial  and 
commercial  activity.  From  this  fact,  and  from  the 
barrenness  of  Prussia  during  the  period  of  Germany's 
spiritual  fertility,  one  may  surely  argue  that  the 
pressure  of  a  rigid  State-despotism  on  the  life  of 
a  nation  is  injurious  to  its  mental  development; 
that  it  robs  the  soul  of  the  people  of  that  elasticity 
of  fibre  which  accompanies  healthy  growth;  that, 
while  it  stifles  initiative  and  intelligence  in  the  rank 
and  file,  on  the  upper  levels  it  makes  for  mediocrity 
of  talent  and  mechanical  efficiency  rather  than  for 
those  higher  developments,  intellectual  and  spiritual, 
through  which  a  people  keeps  open  its  intercourse 
with  the  ideal  and  keeps  alive  the  flame  of  its  own 
inner  life. 

But  the  mischievous  results  of  the  pressure  of 
State-dogmatism  are  not  wholly  negative.  If  the 
spontaneous  energies  of  human  nature  are  held 
back  by  over-rigid  discipline  or  by  excess  of  bureau- 
cratic control,  or  by  any  other  form  of  dogmatic 
pressure,  if  all  legitimate  outlets  are  denied  to  them, 
there  is  a  danger  that  they  will  seek  other  outlets 
for  themselves,  and  at  last,  after  many  subterranean 
activities,  break  forth  with  explosive  violence. 
And  this  anarchic  upheaval,  the  ulterior  conse- 
quences of  which  it  is  impossible  to  foresee,  will  be 
mental  as  well  as  moral.  The  orgies  of  immorality 
in  which  Berlin  indulges,  the  outbursts  of  depraved 
criminality  which  from  time  to  time  furnish  the 
readers  of  the  German  newspapers  with  a  morbid 
excitement,  the  more  wanton  and  purposeless  of 
the  atrocities  which  have  disgraced  the  German 
army  in  the  present  war,  are  doubtless  the  results 


138        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

of  such  a  reaction.  But  the  mental  results  will  be 
even  more  serious,  partly  because  the  range  of 
their  activity  will  be  wider,  partly  because  the 
perversion  of  a  nation's  ideas  and  ideals  must  needs 
have  far-reaching  moral  consequences.  Dr.  Fried- 
rich  Paulsen,  an  eminent  German  critic,  when 
considering  Nietzsche's  popularity  with  the  rising 
generation  in  Germany,  asks  himself  what  is  the  par- 
ticular mood  or  frame  of  mind  to  which  Nietzsche's 
tumultuous  ideas  respond.  "  I  think,"  he  answers, 
"it  is  just  that  from  which  Nietzsche  suffers — 
intellectual  anarchism ;  and  the  cause  of  this  mood 
or  depression  (for  it  is  a  pathological  condition)  I 
deem  to  be  the  excess  of  pressure  and  compulsion 
to  correctness  to  which  everybody  is  exposed  from 
youth  to  age.  Intellectual  anarchism  is  a  re- 
action against  the  long-continued  subjection  imposed 
in  the  school,  the  Church,  society  and  the  State. 
The  effect  of  this  ceaseless  discipline  is  that  correct 
ideas  upon  all  matters,  historical  and  political, 
religious  and  moral,  literary  and  philological,  to 
which  we  are  trained  by  long  schooling  and  many 
examinations,  by  public  opinion  and  private  admo- 
nition, by  patriotic  festivals  with  their  eternally 
reiterated  eloquence,  by  seduction  and  threat,  at 
last  appear  to  us  so  stale,  insipid  and  intolerable 
that  we  tear  up  and  throw  from  us  everything,  the 
correct  opinions  with  the  old  truths,  the  conventional 
standards  with  the  worn-out  relics,  and  eventually 
logic  and  morality  with  them,  give  ourselves  over 
to  saturnalia  of  paradox,  and  celebrate  a  very 
feast  of  intellectual  topsy-turveydom."  And  this 
violence,  as  the  same  writer  reminds  us,  is  a  proof 
of  weakness,  not  of  strength.  "  It  is  the  dulled, 


DEADENED   BY   DOCILITY  139 

anaemic,   starved  body  which  yearns  for  warmth 
and  stupefaction  in  strong  drink."  l 

The  Nemesis  of  docility  takes  many  forms.  This 
is  one  of  them.  The  spirit  of  submissiveness  which 
makes  us  prone  to  walk,  in  obedience  to  orders, 
in  familiar  and  well-worn  paths,  may  lead  us  at 
last — by  doing  violence  to  our  nature  and  so  pro- 
voking a  fierce  reaction — into  paths  of  lawlessness 
and  revolution  "  of  which  we  know  neither  the 
dangers  nor  the  end." 

1  Quoted  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Dawson  in  What  is  Wrong  with 
Germany  ? 


CHAPTER  VI 

BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY 

WE  have  seen  that  the  undue  pressure  which 
the  over-paternal  German  State  brings  to  bear  on 
the  over-docile  German  citizen  is  a  demoralizing 
influence  which  takes  many  forms.  But  what 
proof  can  I  give  that  the  German  citizen  has  been 
demoralized  by  that  pressure?  Many  proofs  might 
be  given.  I  will  content  myself  with  two, — the 
savagery  of  the  German  armies  in  the  field  and  the 
criminality  of  the  German  people  at  home. 

The  former  phenomenon  has  startled  the  whole 
civilized  world,  and  set  it  wondering  what  is  the 
meaning  and  value  of  its  vaunted  civilization. 
There  is  ample  and  conclusive  evidence  that,  since 
the  war  began,  the  Germans  have  massacred  large 
numbers  of  unarmed  and  innocent  civilians — men, 
women,  and  children;  that  they  have  violated 
thousands  of  women  of  all  ages,  including  many 
nuns;  that  they  have  carried. away  to  forced  labour 
numbers  of  men  and  boys  from  the  districts  in  their 
occupation ;  that  they  have  bombarded  defenceless 
towns  and  villages  from  the  land,  the  sea,  and  the 
air ;  that  they  have  wantonly  destroyed  many  towns 
and  villages,  with  their  cathedrals,  churches,  town- 
halls,  and  other  monuments  of  antiquity ;  that  they 
have  polluted  and  desecrated  innumerable  churches  ; 

140 


BRUTALIZED   BY  DOCILITY         141 

that  they  have  systematically  looted  shops,  ware- 
houses, factories,  and  private  houses ;  that  in  battle 
they  have  massacred  the  wounded  as  they  lay  on 
the  ground ;  that  they  have  murdered,  starved,  and 
otherwise  maltreated  prisoners;  that  they  have 
tortured  captured  scouts  in  order  to  extract  in- 
formation from  them;  that  they  have  deliberately 
fired  on  Red  Cross  ambulances  and  hospitals,  and 
have  even  tried  to  sink  a  Red  Cross  ship;  that 
they  have  used  civilians,  including  women  and 
children,  as  screens  to  protect  their  advancing 
troops;  that  they  have  made  a  treacherous  use  of 
the  Red  Cross  and  the  white  flag;  that  they  have 
employed  vitriol,  burning  liquids  and  gases,  poison- 
ous gases,  explosive  and  doctored  bullets  as  weapons 
of  war ;  that  they  have  poisoned  wells  with  arsenic 
and  disease  germs ;  that  they  have  sunk  passenger- 
and  merchant-ships  and  fishing-boats  without  warn- 
ing, and  left  the  crews  and  passengers  to  drown. 

This  is  a  long  list,  and  it  could  easily  be  length- 
ened.1 As  it  stands,  it  constitutes  a  damning 
indictment  of  a  great  nation.  And  the  evidence 
in  support  of  it  is,  as  I  have  said,  ample  and  con- 
clusive. For,  apart  from  the  testimony  of  victims 
and  eye-witnesses,2  which  already  fills  many 
volumes  and  will  fill  many  more,  we  have  the  de- 
tailed records  of  atrocities  in  the  notebooks  of 
German  prisoners  3 — records  which  in  some  cases 
were  made  with  compunction  and  even  horror,  in 

1  The  systematic  extermination  of  the  Armenian  people 
by  the  Turks  is  a  national  crime  for  which  Germany,  owing 
to  her  influence  with  the  rulers  of  Turkey  being  paramount, 
must  be  held  responsible. 

2  3  These  footnotes  are  filed  at  the  end  of  the  chapter 
as  Appendices  A,  B. 


142         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

others  with  callous  indifference,  in  others  with 
malignant  glee;  we  have  the  admissions,  conscious 
or  unconscious,  of  German  newspapers ; l  we  have 
the  general  orders  issued  by  commanding  officers ;  2 
we  have  the  German  War  Book,  with  its  sinister 
doctrine  of  the  "  necessity  of  war  " ;  3  we  have  the 
Emperor's  injunction  to  his  soldiers  in  China  to 
bear  themselves  like  Huns,  and  his  more  recent 
order  to  his  invading  armies  in  Belgium  to  terrorize 
the  inhabitants  by  acts  of  "  frightfulness."  When 
every  allowance  has  been  made  for  exaggeration 
on  the  part  of  eye-witnesses  and  other  local  re- 
porters, we  shall  find  that  their  testimony,  sup- 
ported by  that  of  the  German  witnesses  whom  I 
have  cited,  proves  to  demonstration  that  Germany 
has  waged  this  war  with  a  studied  disregard  of 
humanity,  chivalry,  and  honour. 

But  could  we  have  expected  her  to  do  otherwise  ? 
Does  not  the  a  priori  evidence  fall  into  line  with 
the  collateral  and  the  positive  evidence  ?  We  have 
heard  much  of  late  of  German  savagery  in  the  field. 
We  hear  but  little  of  German  criminality  at  home. 
Yet  the  latter,  besides  serving  to  throw  light  on  the 
former,  is  the  graver  and  more  significant  phenome- 
non. Also,  it  is  vouched  for  by  Germany  herself,  in 
her  statistics  of  crime,  whereas  the  savagery  of  her 
soldiers,  however  well  attested,  is  easily  denied. 

There  are  two  classes  of  crime,  in  particular,  in 
which  Germany,  on  her  own  showing,  defies  com- 
petition,— brutal  "  crimes  of  malice  "  and  brutal 
"  crimes  of  shame."  More  than  twenty  years 
ago,  Treitschke,  the  German  historian,  in  his  great 

123  These  footnotes  are  filed  at  the  end  of  the  chapter 
as  Appendices  C,  D,  E. 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          143 

work,  Die  Politik,  wrote  as  follows  :  "  There  are 
epidemics  of  crime  which  are  a  very  serious  danger 
to  a  nation.  Up  to  the  early  'sixties  it  used  to 
appear  true  that  crimes  of  violence  decreased,  and 
that  only  crimes  of  fraud  increased,  in  war  time. 
Since  then  the  stabbing  custom  has  sprung  up. 
All  at  once  the  working  classes  began  to  carry 
non-shutting  knives,  and  the  crimes  of  brutality, 
so  prevalent  in  our  time,  have  continually  increased. 
The  manner  in  which  this  blood-licking  spreads  like 
an  epidemic  is  truly  awful,  and  the  State  must 
take  precautionary  measures  against  it.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  terrible  increase  in  crimes  of  shame."  1 
Since  Treitschke  wrote,  the  epidemics  of  crime  to 
which  he  called  attention  seem  to  have  become 
endemic.  The  following  figures  are  significant. 
During  the  five  years,  1907-11  inclusive,  there  were 
in  Germany  600,000  cases  2  of  felonious  and  malici- 
ous wounding  in  which  "  severe "  injuries  were 
inflicted.  This  gives  a  yearly  average  of  120,000. 
During  the  same  period  the  yearly  average  of  cases 
of  "  felonious  wounding  "  in  England  and  Wales 
was  126.  Under  the  heading  of  "  malicious  wound- 
ing (misdemeanours)  "  the  yearly  average  of  cases 
was  636.  But  this  is  a  very  comprehensive  head- 
ing, having  ten  sub-headings,  in  only  three  of 
which  is  the  actual  causing  of  bodily  harm  (whether 
"  light  "  or  "  severe  ")  part  of  the  offence.  How 
many  cases  occurred  under  each  of  the  sub-headings 
I  do  not  know.  But  it  would  probably  be  an  over- 

1  Quoted  by  Dr.  T.  F.  A.  Smith  in  his  book  The  Soul  of 
Germany. 

2  By  "  cases  "  I  mean  cases  sent  for  trial  to  the  courts 
which    are    competent   to    deal    with   such    offences,    not 
"  cases  reported  to  the  police." 


144        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

estimate  to  say  that  in  England  and  Wales, 
during  the  period  in  question,  the  yearly  average 
of  cases  of  felonious  and  malicious  wounding  in 
which  severe  injuries  were  inflicted  was  600.  The 
population  of  Germany  is  nearly  double  that  of 
England  and  Wales;  but  600  goes  into  120,000  not 
twice,  but  two  hundred  times.1 

The  "  terrible  increase  in  crimes  of  shame " 
which  Treitschke  deplored  seems  also  to  have  been 
fully  maintained  since  he  wrote.  During  the  ten 
years,  1897-1906  inclusive,  the  yearly  average  of 
cases  of  rape  in  Germany  was  9,381,  in  England  and 
Wales  152.  In  other  words,  in  proportion  to  its 
population,  cases  of  rape  are  thirty-five  times  as 
numerous  in  Germany  as  in  England  and  Wales. 

These  figures  are  bad  enough;  but  there  are 
worse  to  come.  Among  the  boys  of  Germany 
below  the  age  of  eighteen  there  were,  during  the 
year  1912,  eleven  times  as  many  cases  of  malicious 
wounding  as  among  all  the  inhabitants  of  this 
country,  and  nearly  nine  times  as  many  cases  of 
rape.  There  were  also  more  than  a  hundred  cases 
of  murder  or  manslaughter.  Comparison  between 
the  youths  of  the  two  countries  is  rendered  difficult 
by  the  fact  that  the  basis  of  classification  according 
to  age  is  different  in  England  and  Wales  from  what 
it  is  in  Germany,  and  that  in  classifying  criminals 
according  to  age  our  Home  Office  deals  with  con- 
victions, not  with  cases.  I  find,  however,  that  whereas 
in  Germany,  in  1912,  nearly  9000  boys  below  the 
age  of  eighteen  were  tried  for  inflicting  bodily 

1  If  we  compare  convictions  in  the  two  countries,  we  shall 
find  that  the  figures  are  still  more  unfavourable  to  Germany. 
See  also  end  of  chapter,  Appendix  F. 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          145 

injuries,  in  this  country  only  four  young  persons 
below  the  age  of  twenty-one  were  convicted  of 
"  felonious  wounding,"  and  only  twenty-seven  of 
"  malicious  wounding  (misdemeanours)  ";  and  that 
whereas  in  Germany  952  boys  below  the  age  of 
eighteen  were  tried  for  rape,  in  this  country  only 
four  youths  below  the  age  of  twenty-one  were 
convicted  of  that  crime.1 

Since  the  war  began  crime  in  this  country  has 
decreased  to  a  remarkable  extent.  In  Oldham,  for 
example,  a  populous  industrial  centre,  there  was  not 
a  single  case  for  trial  at  the  first  Quarter  Sessions 
of  the  current  year  (January  1916).  In  Germany, 
on  the  contrary,  there  has  been  a  serious  increase 
in  crime,  at  any  rate  among  the  young.  The 
following  paragraph  appeared  in  a  recent  issue  of 
the  "  official "  Cologne  Gazette  : — 

"  Crime  has  increased  among  young  people — in  the 
industrial  districts  particularly — to  a  really  alarming 
extent.  In  the  case  of  a  single  local  tribunal  the 
number  of  sentences  passed  on  young  men,  as  well 
as  young  women,  rose  from  58  in  1913  to  183  in 
1914  and  to  254  during  the  first  ten  months  of  1915. 
Among  the  offences,  fraud,  robbery  with  violence, 
attempts  at  murder  and  actual  manslaughter, 
figure  very  largely,  the  youngest  offenders  being 
from  sixteen  to  twenty  years,  while  none  of  them 
was  older  than  twenty-six.  It  is  a  truly  terrifying 
picture  which  casts  a  deep  stain  on  German  Kultur." 

1  My  authorities  for  the  figures  which  I  have  quoted 
are:  (i)  The  publications  of  the  "Imperial  Statistical 
Office  "  in  Berlin,  which  have  been  studied  and  digested 
by  Dr.  T.  F.  A.  Smith  in  his  book,  The  Soul  of  Germany  ; 
and  (2)  the  "  Criminal  Statistics"  issued  by  our  own  Home 
Office. 


146        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

The  Taegliche  Rundschau  says  that,  although 
ordinary  crime  has  decreased  in  Prussia,  juvenile 
crime  has  increased  alarmingly,  the  figures  for  1915 
being  "  even  more  alarming  than  those  for  1914." 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  paper  attributes 
the  "growing  savagery  of  youth,  both  male  and 
female"  to  the  high  wages  earned  by  the  young  in 
factories  and  to  the  want  of  supervision  at  home 
and  in  school, — in  other  words  to  the  breakdown  of 
the  discipline  of  repression  and  prohibition.1 

These  facts  and  figures  prove,  with  an  eloquence 
which  I  need  not  try  to  heighten,  that  demoralizing 
influences  are  at  work  in  Germany.  These  influences 
are  no  doubt  many  and  various;  but  foremost 
among  them,  one  may  safely  conjecture,  are  the 
influences  for  evil  which  we  have  seen  to  be  inherent 
in  the  unwritten  constitution  of  Germany,  with  its 
suppression  of  freedom  and  individuality,  and  its 
substitution  of  machinery  for  life, — such  influences 
as  the  tendency  to  deaden  sensibility,  to  pervert 
ideals,  to  externalize  standards  and  motives,  to 
weaken  the  will. 

The  criminal  statistics  of  Germany  show  that 
these  influences  are  potent  for  evil  in  civil  life. 
May  we  not  expect  them  to  be  more  potent  in  the 

1  Precocious  in  crime,  the  German  boys  are  also  pre- 
cocious in  the  matter  of  taking  their  own  lives.  Germany 
has  long  been  notorious  for  the  number  of  suicides  com- 
mitted by  boys  below  the  age  of  eighteen.  Since  the  war 
began  there  has  been  a  marked  increase  in  these  cases. 
According  to  a  recent  Exchange  telegram  from  Amsterdam  : 
"  The  German  Home  Secretary  is  about  to  issue  a  circular 
to  provincial  authorities,  drawing  attention  to  the  constant 
increase  in  the  number  of  suicides  of  boys.  According 
to  the  statistics  boy  suicides  have  more  than  doubled 
since  the  war  broke  out,  the  average  age  of  the  suicides 
being  sixteen." 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          147 

army,  where  the  pressure  which  generates  them  is 
by  many  degrees  stronger?  And  more  potent  still 
when  the  army  is  on  active  service,  and  new  kinds 
of  temptation  and  the  stress  of  a  new  excitement 
assail  the  soldier? 

When  there  is  a  high  degree  of  criminality  at 
home  and  in  time  of  peace,  and  when  the  criminal 
instincts  of  the  people  find  their  chief  outlets  in 
brutal  crimes,  whether  of  "  malice  "  or  of  "  shame," 
one  would  naturally  expect  to  find — in  the  absence 
of  restraining  forces — a  high  degree  of  savagery  in 
war,  especially  in  a  war  which  took  the  form  of  the 
invasion  by  a  citizen  army  of  a  foreign  land.  In 
the  German  army  the  restraining  forces  at  the  dis- 
posal of  authority  are,  as  it  happens,  abnormally 
strong.  The  discipline  to  which  the  soldiers  are 
subjected  is  so  strict  and  severe  that,  had  the 
General  Staff  willed  there  should  be  no  atrocities, 
there  would  have  been  none,  or  at  any  rate  very 
few.  But  the  General  Staff  willed  that  there  should 
be  many  atrocities,  and  their  will  was  duly  obeyed. 

The  atrocities  which  have  been  recorded  may 
be  divided  into  two  chief  classes, — those  which 
were  ordered  by  authority,  and  those  for  which, 
whether  they  were  permitted  or  discountenanced 
by  authority,  the  soldiers  themselves  were  primarily 
responsible.  To  the  former  class  belong  the  whole- 
sale massacring  of  unarmed  citizens  and  the  whole- 
sale burning  of  towns  and  villages  in  order  to 
punish  the  offences  of  individual  franc-tireurs  ; 
the  deliberate  destruction  of  cathedrals,  town-halls, 
and  other  public  monuments;  the  deportation  of 
able-bodied  men  and  their  employment  at  forced 
labour;  the  use  of  helpless  civilians  of  both  sexes 


148        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

and  all  ages  as  screens  for  advancing  troops;  the 
use  of  poisonous  gas  and  burning  and  corrosive 
liquids  as  weapons  of  offence;  and  the  poisoning 
of  wells  and  streams.  The  object  of  the  General 
Staff  in  ordering  such  atrocities  to  be  perpetrated 
was  to  gain  military  advantage  of  one  kind  or 
another.  Whether  they  were  justified  in  giving 
such  orders  with  such  ends  in  view,  and  whether 
they  acted  wisely,  even  in  their  own  interests,  in 
giving  them,  are  questions  which  will  presently  be 
considered.  My  immediate  concern  is  to  ask  what 
effect  the  enforced  execution  of  barbarously  cruel 
orders  would  be  likely  to  have  on  the  moral  of 
those  who  were  compelled  to  execute  them.  If 
dogmatic  pressure,  as  such,  tends  to  deaden  moral 
responsibility;  if  dogmatic  pressure,  when  exerted 
by  an  autocratic  State,  tends  to  produce  the  same 
effect  in  a  high  degree, — what  limits  will  there  be 
to  the  deadening  influence  on  morals  of  the  pres- 
sure which  emanates  from  an  autocratic  State, 
acting  through  its  military  representatives,  and 
which  takes  the  form,  not  of  mere  prohibitions 
(mostly  non-moral),  as  in  civil  life,  but  of  positive 
commands — and  of  commands  to  do  deeds  which 
so  flagrantly  transgress  the  moral  law  of  the 
civilized  world  that  ordinary  men,  whose  moral 
intuitions  were  sound  without  being  in  any  degree 
over-sensitive,  would  instinctively  shrink  from 
them  with  shame  and  horror?  Under  such  a 
regime  and  in  such  an  atmosphere  a  general  con- 
fusion of  moral  landmarks  could  scarcely  fail  to 
take  place;  and  the  German  soldier,  who  had 
already  suffered  in  civil  life  from  a  constraint 
which  unduly  restricted  his  freedom  and  responsi- 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          149 

bility,  might  well  be  pardoned  for  falling  a  victim 
to  this  demoralizing  confusion. 

And  this  confusion  would  inevitably  be  heightened 
by  the  perversion  of  ideals  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
has  resulted  from  the  self-idealization  of  the  Ger- 
man State.  The  German  theory  of  the  State,  a 
theory  which  is  the  distilled  essence  of  practice, 
supplies  an  explanation,  and  from  its  own  point  of 
view  a  justification,  of  most  of  the  horrors  of  the 
present  war.  For  it  is  open  to  the  exponents  of 
that  theory  to  plead  that  every  atrocity  which  the 
Germans  have  perpetrated,  from  the  destruction 
of  Louvain  and  the  slaughter  of  its  inhabitants  to 
the  torpedoing  of  the  Lusitania,  was  done  in  order 
to  give  victory  to  Germany  in  the  present  struggle, 
and  was  therefore — since  the  salus  reipublicce 
determines  the  moral  horizon  of  the  citizen — a 
blameless  and  even  a  virtuous  act.  And  this 
argument  would  appeal  with  special  force  to  one 
who  had  been  taught — as  are  most  Germans  now- 
a-days — from  his  earliest  years,  in  school  and 
out  of  school,  to  hate  and  despise  all  the  nations 
that  could  be  regarded  as  rivals  of  his  own.  The 
soldier  who  had  been  ordered  by  one  whose  will 
was  law,  and  resistance  to  whose  will  was  death, 
to  murder  an  innocent  citizen  (let  us  say)  might 
well  begin  to  wonder  by  what  moral  standards  he 
ought  to  regulate  his  conduct  so  far  as  this  was 
under  his  own  control.  But  the  soldier  who 
seriously  believed  that  to  murder  an  innocent 
citizen  at  the  bidding  of  his  officer  was  a  virtuous 
act  because  it  served,  or  was  supposed  to  serve, 
the.  interests  of  his  country,  would  be  the  victim 
of  something  worse  than  a  mere  confusion  of  moral 


150        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

landmarks.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  in  doubt  as  to 
what  is  good  and  what  is  evil.  It  is  another  thing 
to  be  able  to  say  with  a  clear  conscience  :  "  Evil, 
thou  art  my  good."  When  the  latter  stage  has 
been  reached,  the  sphere  of  moral  depravity  is  apt 
to  widen  with  terrible  rapidity.  If  what  is  mani- 
festly evil  is  to  be  accounted  good  because  the 
State  enjoins  it,  it  is  clear  that  nothing  is  intrinsic- 
ally evil;  and  if  moral  laws,  even  those  which  are 
most  authoritative,  can  be  set  aside  at  the  bidding 
of  the  State,  it  is  clear  that  no  moral  law  has  any 
inherent  obligation.  There  are  men  who  can  stand 
the  shock  of  this  discovery  by  falling  back  on  the 
great  principles  which  are  behind  our  axiomata 
media  ;  just  as  there  are  men  whose  moral  intui- 
tions will  continue  to  work  even  when  the  axiomata 
media  of  morality  have  been  discredited.  But  for 
the  average  German,  who  is  no  moral  philosopher 
and  whose  intuitions  have  been  deadened  by  undue 
reliance  on  rules  and  directions,  the  axiomata  media 
are  the  beginning  and  end  of  moral  obligation ;  and 
if  they  should  be  discredited,  he  would  be  left 
without  guidance  in  the  conduct  of  life,  except  so 
far  as  his  goings  might  be  ordered  for  him  by  the 
drill-sergeant  or  the  policeman.  Of  such  guidance 
he  has  always  had  far  too  much.  Fenced  in  as  he 
is  with  innumerable  prohibitions,  he  is  at  all  times 
apt  to  assume  that  whatever  is  not  authoritatively 
forbidden  is  lawful  and  right.  And,  oppressed  as 
he  is  by  his  duty  to  the  State,  he  is  at  all  times 
apt  to  assume  that  his  duty  to  God  and  his  duty 
to  man  are  matters  of  secondary  importance.  But 
when  he  discovers,  as  a  soldier,  that  the  moral 
laws  which  are  supposed  to  regulate  his  conduct 


BRUTALIZED   BY  DOCILITY          151 

(beyond  the  limits  of  disciplinary  control),  by 
determining  his  duty  to  God  and  to  man,  have  no 
inherent  authority,  he  is  scarcely  to  be  blamed  if 
he  decides  that  when  he  has  "  rendered  unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar's,"  whether  in  the  army 
or  in  civil  life,  he  has  done  all  that  is  required  of 
him;  in  other  words,  if  he  holds  himself  entirely 
absolved  from  all  purely  moral  obligations. 

And  he  will  do  this  instinctively  and  sub- 
consciously, not  because  he  has  thought  the  matter 
out,  but  because  he  has  actually  sunk  to  a  lower 
moral  level.  For  other  influences  have  been  help- 
ing to  depress  his  spiritual  vitality.  The  deaden- 
ing of  his  moral  sensibility,  the  perversion  of  his 
moral  ideals,  are  influences  to  which  he  is  exposed 
in  civil  life  as  well  as  in  the  army,  though  in  the 
latter,  especially  in  war  time,  their  effect,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  raised  to  a  higher  power.  But  the 
discipline  of  the  German  army  is  a  repressive  and 
coercive  force,  to  which  the  life  of  the  civilian, 
strictly  disciplined  though  it  is,  affords  no  parallel; 
and,  like  all  the  other  coercive  forces  to  which  the 
docile  German  is  exposed,  it  reaches  its  maximum 
of  intensity  in  time  of  war. 

I  have  elsewhere  spoken  of  the  discipline  of  the 
German  army,  which  is  a  heritage  from  the  days 
when  serfdom  was  the  complement  of  Junkerdom 
in  Prussia.  If  the  general  tendency  of  dogmatic 
pressure  is  to  deaden  our  intuitions  and  sym- 
pathies, in  the  Prussianized  German  army  this  pres- 
sure is  so  violent  and  so  persistent  that  brutalizing 
is  the  only  word  which  will  adequately  describe  its 
effect.  For  in  that  army,  if  in  no  other,  "  discipline 
is  developed  by  methods  which  aim  at  producing 


152        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

a  blind  mechanical  obedience  to  orders  through 
habits  formed  by  a  monotonous  routine  of  drill, 
coupled  with  severe  and  even  cruel  punishment." 
And  the  drill  is  monotonous,  the  punishments  are 
cruel  beyond  words.  The  German  soldiers,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  their  adversaries,  "  fear 
their  officers  more  than  they  fear  death."  Men 
who  are  subjected  to  such  a  regime  cannot  be  ex- 
pected to  retain  the  finer  feelings  of  humanity. 
He  who  lives  to  obey  orders,  he  who  is  taught  to 
regard  obedience  as  an  end  in  itself,  becomes  dead 
— sooner  or  later — to  all  genuinely  moral  considera- 
tions. So  does  he  who  has  to  'enforce  obedience 
of  such  a  type,  in  such  an  atmosphere.  And  when 
obedience  is  enforced  by  cruel  punishments,  with 
blows  and  curses  as  their  normal  background- 
enforced  by  the  free  use  of  the  whip,  the  sword, 
the  revolver,  the  machine-gun,  and  even  of  forms 
of  torture,  such  as  the  suspension  of  men  by  their 
wrists  from  trees  with  their  toes  barely  touching 
the  ground — the  iron  of  brutality  can  scarcely  fail 
to  enter  into  the  souls  both  of  the  executioner  and 
of  his  victims.  The  officer  who  publicly  slashed  a 
sentry  across  the  face  for  having  been  slow  to  salute 
him  was  a  cowardly  brute.  So  was  the  officer  who 
ordered  a  soldier  to  be  flogged  with  a  cat-o'-nine- 
tails for  having  relaxed  for  a  moment  his  attitude 
of  rigid  attention  while  he  (the  officer)  was  smoking 
a  cigarette.  These  officers  had  been  brutalized  by 
too  much  despotic  authority.  Their  victims  may 
well  have  been  brutalized  by  too  much  punishment 
and  too  much  drill.  The  officer  who  is  cruel  to 
his  soldiers  is  not  likely  to  be  considerate  to  his 
enemies,  armed  or  unarmed.  No  more  is  the 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          158 

soldier  who  is  cruelly  treated  by  his  officers.  The 
force  of  habit  will  be  too  strong  for  the  former.  The 
instinctive  desire  to  find  a  vent  for  outraged  feelings 
will  be  too  strong  for  the  latter.  The  sentry  who 
was  publicly  slashed  across  the  face  "  stood  rigidly 
at  attention  and  never  quivered  " ;  but  the  fierce 
resentment  which  must  have  surged  up  in  him  was 
doubtless  waiting  for  an  outlet;  and  one  could 
scarcely  expect  the  victim  of  such  an  'outrage  to 
be  a  model  of  chivalry  and  courtesy  in  his  dealings 
with  helpless  citizens.  That  particular  outrage  was 
witnessed  by  Mr.  Alexander  Powell,  the  American 
newspaper  correspondent ;  and  when  his  narrative  of 
it  reached  this  country,  a  journalist  who  had  hitherto 
received  with  incredulity  the  stories  of  German 
atrocities  in  Belgium  ceased  to  be  incredulous,  for 
he  realized  that  the  army  in  which  such  an  incident 
was  possible  was  capable  of  almost  any  crime. 

The  discipline  that  tends  to  deaden  the  moral 
sensibility  of  the  soldier  tends  also  to  weaken  his 
will.  As  he  looks  to  authority  instead  of  to  his 
conscience  for  his  ultimate  standard  of  right  and 
wrong,  so  he  looks  to  authority  instead  of  to  his 
own  will  for  the  driving  power,  the  moral  force, 
which  will  enable  him  to  do  right  and  resist  the 
temptation  to  do  wrong.  Accustomed  as  he  is  to 
be  controlled  by  others,  he  gradually  loses  the 
power  of  controlling  himself.  That  loss  of  self- 
control  l  tends  to  aggravate  brutality  goes  without 

1  To  those  who  have  read  with  admiration  of  the  German 
soldier's  steadiness  in  battle,  it  may  seem  strange  that  I 
should  hint  at  his  being  deficient  in  self-control.  But  in 
this,  as  in  other  matters,  military  discipline,  when  carried 
too  far,  produces  a  bastard  virtue  which  is  readily  mis- 
taken for  the  genuine  article  that  it  counterfeits.  It  is 


154         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

saying.  A  strong  will  is  sometimes  combined  with 
a  brutal  nature;  and  when  this  happens,  brutality 
will  be  kept  in  check  just  so  far  as  it  is  found  politic 
or  convenient  to  do  so.  But  the  human  brute 
who  has  lost  self-control  is  at  the  mercy  of  his  own 
lusts  and  passions;  and  in  proportion  as  his  will 
weakens,  his  brutality  may  be  expected  to  break 
bounds  and  run  riot.1 

I  have  spoken  of  the  atrocities  which  have  been 
perpetrated  by  the  German  soldiery,  in  obedience 
to  official  orders.  For  these  the  General  Staff 
must  be  held  responsible.  We  can  now  see  that  it 
would  have  been  a  miracle  if  there  had  not  been  a 
second  class  of  atrocities — atrocities  for  which  the 
soldiers  themselves  were  primarily  responsible.  To 

not  self-control  that  makes  the  German  soldier  stand 
steady  under  a  devastating  fire.  It  is  the  force  of  habit 
combined  with  the  force  of  fear.  The  discipline  of  drill 
makes  a  man  an  automaton — such  at  least  is  its  tendency 
— and  an  automaton  can  do  many  things  that  a  man  does, 
and  do  them  up  to  a  certain  point  with  greater  certainty 
and  precision ;  but  when  the  demand  comes  for  vital 
activity,  for  the  display  of  qualities  which  are  too  human 
to  be  counterfeited,  the  automaton  will  be  unable  to 
respond  to  it.  Automatic  steadiness  in  battle  is  no  more 
a  proof  of  force  of  will  on  the  part  of  the  German  soldier 
than  is  the  automatic  repetition  of  hymns  of  hate  a  proof 
of  iron  resolution  on  the  part  of  the  German  people.  Where 
valour  is  compulsory,  the  praise  that  rewards  it  loses  its 
meaning  and  its  value,  so  that  while  the  coward  gets  more 
than  his  due,  the  hero  gets  less. 

1  A  private  in  the  German  army,  who  in  civil  life  is  (or 
was)  a  professor  of  Latin  at  a  gymnasium,  in  his  diary, 
which  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  sums  up  the  effect 
of  Prussian  discipline  on  character  in  the  following  words  : 
"  The  German  soldier  has  no  personality,  he  is  a  machine, 
and  that  is  what  he  is  trained  to  be ;  as  soon  as  he  is  left 
to  himself  he  is  idle,  stupid  and  a  blockhead.  He  has  only 
one  idea,  eating  and  sleeping,  and  his  brutishness  is  only 
limited  by  barbarous  punishment." 


BRUTALIZED   BY  DOCILITY          155 

this  class  belong  the  wholesale  violation  of  women, 
the  wholesale  looting  of  private  property,  the  un- 
authorized murder  of  helpless  citizens,  including 
women  and  children,  the  unauthorized  cruelties 
inflicted  on  the  wounded  and  on  prisoners,  and  a 
variety  of  wantonly  brutal  crimes  which  are  difficult 
to  account  for  except  on  the  assumption  that  a 
spirit  of  mischief  and  evil  had  been  unloosed  by 
drink.  Having  regard  to  the  strict  discipline  of  the 
German  army,  one  must  suppose  that  these  atroci- 
ties, though  unauthorized,  were  in  many  cases 
tacitly  sanctioned  by  those  in  command.1 

Why  was  this  done?  Why  were  these  horrors 
permitted,  instead  of  being  put  down  with  a  strong 
hand?  Partly,  I  think,  because  they  served  to 
terrorize  the  enemy,  an  end  which  the  General 
Staff  seem  to  have  regarded  as  intrinsically  desir- 
able. Partly,  perhaps  chiefly,  because  they  afforded 
an  outlet  to  explosive  forces  which  the  iron  discipline 
of  the  German  army  rigorously  represses,  but  for 
which  safety-valves  of  some  kind  or  other  are  im- 
peratively needed.  For  if,  by  the  systematic  re- 
pression of  freedom  and  initiative,  a  man's  healthy 
energies  are  kept  under  lock  and  key,  they  will 
accumulate  in  their  hiding-places,  gathering  force 
as  they  become  more  and  more  compressed,  but 
gradually  transferring  their  force  to  the  man's 
baser  lusts  and  passions;  and  when  the  day  of 
liberation  will  come,  as  come  it  will — for  sooner  or 
later  the  repressed  energies  will  either  explode  into 
open  rebellion  or  force  new  outlets  for  themselves,— 
it  is  the  latter,  not  the  former,  the  baser  lusts,  not 

1  In  many  cases,  but  certainly  not  in  all.  See  end  of 
chapter,  Appendix  G. 


156         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

the  healthy  energies,  that  will  break  forth  and  work 
their  will.  This  means  that  the  lower  desires  will 
have  repudiated  the  authority  of  the  higher,  weak- 
ened as  these  are  by  constant  repression, — in  other 
words,  that  the  man  will  have  lost  self-control. 
But  in  the  eyes  of  the  strict  disciplinarian  loss  of 
self-control  is  preferable  to  loss  of  the  habit  of 
mechanical  obedience.  As  in  civil  life  the  German 
Government  is  well  content  that  reaction  against 
the  prevailing  "  compulsion  to  correctness  "  should 
take  the  form  of  "  intellectual  anarchism,"  cul- 
minating in  the  cult  of  Nietzsche,  rather  than  of 
open  resistance  to  the  insidious  despotism  of  the 
State,  so  in  the  army  the  General  Staff  seem  to 
be  well  content  that  reaction  against  disciplinary 
constraint  should  take  the  form,  at  any  rate  in 
war  time,  of  indulgence  in  crime  rather  than  of 
disobedience  to  orders.  In  sanctioning  the  use  of 
these  dangerous  safety-valves  the  ruling  powers  are 
no  doubt  wise  in  their  own  generation,  but  their 
wisdom  is  not  that  of  the  children  of  light. 

It  would  have  been  a  miracle,  I  repeat,  if,  in  the 
excitement  and  confusion  of  war,  the  German 
soldier  had  been  able  to  keep  his  lust  and  greed 
and  anger  under  strict  control.  With  his  con- 
science drugged  and  his  principles  corrupted  by  a 
false  and  narrow  patriotism  which  makes  the  sup- 
posed interests  of  the  State  his  first  and  last  con- 
cern, and  which  makes  the  cult  of  national  hatred 
a  vital  part  of  his  education,  with  his  character 
brutalized  and  his  will  weakened  by  the  relentless 
pressure  of  an  over-rigid  discipline,  with  his  moral 
landmarks  swept  away  by  the  enforced  commission 
of  inhuman  crimes  in  obedience  to  the  authority 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          157 

which  furnishes  him  with  his  ideals  as  well  as  with 
his  rules  and  commands, — the  German  soldier  could 
scarcely  be  expected  to  wage  war  with  clemency  or 
even  with  common  humanity;  and  the  wonder  is 
not  that  his  misdeeds  have  been  so  many,  but  that 
they  have  been  so  few. 

If  I  have  devoted  a  disproportionate  amount  of 
space  to  what  I  have  called  the  a  priori  evidence 
for  the  atrocities  which  the  German  armies  are 
said  to  have  perpetrated,  the  reason  is  that  it  is  a 
type  of  evidence  which  deserves  to  be  carefully 
studied,  especially  as  it  has  been  freely  invoked 
by  the  apologists,  English  as  well  as  German,  for 
Germany's  conduct  of  the  present  war.  To  investi- 
gate the  positive  evidence  for  the  alleged  atrocities 
would  carry  me  beyond  the  scope  of  this  book. 
The  official  reports  issued  by  the  Belgian,  French, 
British,  and  Russian  Governments  tell  their  own 
tale.  So  do  the  German  War  Book,  the  public 
utterances  of  the  German  Kaiser,  the  proclama- 
tions issued  by  German  commanding  officers,  and 
the  notebooks  of  German  prisoners.  So  do  such 
incontestable  facts  as  the  massacres  at  Louvain, 
Dinant,  Aerschot,  Ardenne,  Rouvres,  Sentis, 
Lebbeke,  etc.,  the  systematic  use  of  poisonous 
and  burning  gases,  and  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania 
and  other  ships.  The  confluence  of  these  three 
currents  provides  a  volume  of  evidence  which  to 
most  minds  carries  absolute  conviction.  But  the 
inhumanity  which  Germany  has  displayed  in  this 
war  was  so  unexpected  and  withal  so  unexampled 
that  some  of  us,  especially  in  the  early  stages  of 
the  war,  have  been  disposed  to  dismiss  the  stories 
of  it  on  a  priori  grounds.  "  No  disciplined  army 


158        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

could  have  done  such  things."  "  No  civilized 
country  could  have  allowed  such  things  to  be 
done."  Such  words  as  these  have  risen  almost 
spontaneously  to  our  lips.  They  prove  nothing 
except  that  we  do  not  understand  the  soul  of  Ger- 
many. Having  studied  the  a  priori  evidence  for 
the  alleged  atrocities  with  some  care,  I  find  that, 
far  from  being  favourable  to  Germany,  it  tells 
against  her  writh  overwhelming  force.  But  in 
doing  so  it  lessens-  in  some  degree  the  criminality 
of  her  crimes.  For  it  suggests  that  in  this,  as  in 
so  many  other  matters,  she  is  the  victim  of  her 
own  unhappy  past. 

The  responsibility  for  the  crimes  which  have 
been  committed  rests  on  the  nation  not  less  than 
on  the  army.  The  German  saying  that  the  army 
is  the  nation  may  not  be  literally  true;  but  it  is 
literally  true  that  from  the  army  to  the  nation 
there  is  but  a  single  step.  If,  as  a  soldier,  the 
German  citizen  is  the  victim  of  the  iron  discipline 
on  which  the  army  has  always  prided  itself,  as  a 
civilian  he  is  subjected  to  a  less  severe  but  more 
insidious  pressure.  For  whatever  harm  this  pres- 
sure may  have  done  to  his  character,  he  is  in  part 
to  blame.  As  I  have  already  pointed  out,  he  has 
allowed  the  State,  through  its  control  of  the  various 
moulds  and  organs  of  opinion,  to  suggest  to  him 
what  he  is  to  think,  to  believe,  and  to  say;  and  to 
do  this  so  effectually  that  he  has  come  at  last  to 
regard  those  thoughts,  beliefs,  and  words  as  his  own. 
In  other  words,  he  has  allowed  the  State  to  take  pos- 
session of  his  moral  and  spiritual  springs  of  action, 
and  so  usurp  the  functions  of  his  own  higher  self. 

Under  the   influence   of  this   insidious   pressure, 


BRUTALIZED   BY  DOCILITY         159 

changes  of  vital  importance  may  be  expected  to 
take  place  in  his  inner  being.  The  stern,  direct, 
dogmatic  pressure  of  military  discipline,  which 
tends  to  deaden  the  moral  sensibility  of  the  soldier, 
affects  the  citizen  for  two  years  of  his  early  life; 
then  its  influence  lessens  and  begins  to  wear  off. 
But  if  his  moral  sensibility  should  survive  or 
recover  from  that  experience,  it  would  be  exposed 
in  civil  life  to  a  new  danger,  the  danger  of  under- 
going a  morbid  transformation  in  two  distinct 
directions.  The  man  who  allows  the  State  to  take 
the  place  of  his  higher  self  surrenders  his  judgment, 
—his  power  and  his  right  to  think  out  and  solve 
his  moral  problems  for  himself;  and  he  loses  his 
sense  of  responsibility  to  his  own  conscience.  These 
changes  come  upon  him  so  stealthily  that  he  may 
never  become  aware  of  either  of  them.  He  may 
flatter  himself  that  he  is  exercising  his  judgment, 
when  all  the  time  he  is  really  thinking,  desiring,  and 
purposing  whatever  the  State  wishes  him  to  think, 
to  desire,  and  to  purpose.  And  he  may  hold  him- 
self responsible  to  his  conscience,  when  all  the  time 
the  State  has  usurped  that  seat  of  authority,  and 
is  whispering  from  it  suggestions  to  him  which  he 
mistakes  for  the  dictates  of  his  own  higher  self. 
And  while  these  changes  are  going  on  in  him,  the 
uniform  pressure  of  State  control  is  crushing  his 
individuality  on  all  the  planes  of  his  being,  and  the 
dominant  theory  of  the  State  is  perverting  the 
latent  idealism  of  his  heart.  With  all  these  in- 
sidious influences  brought  to  bear  on  him  by  the 
ubiquitous  State,  can  we  wonder  that  the  ethics  of 
Humanity  cease  to  appeal  to  him,  and  that,  as  the 
soldier  looks  at  things  from  a  point  of  view  which 


160        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

is  exclusively  military,  so  he  gets  at  last  to  look 
at  things  from  a  point  of  view  which  is  exclusively 
national,  and  therefore  anti-human  and  profoundly 
immoral.  If  he  has  not  been  actually  brutalized, 
like  the  over-disciplined  soldier,  he  has  at  least,  as 
his  sayings  and  doings  abundantly  testify,  become 
callous  to  human  suffering  and  indifferent  to 
ordinary  moral  considerations.  If  he  has  not 
actually  robbed  and  ravaged  and  raped  and  mur- 
dered, he  has  tacitly  consented  to  these  and  other 
such  atrocities,  and  has  thus  taken  on  himself  the 
burden  of  the  soldier's  guilt.  It  was  not  the  Ger- 
man army  only  that  devastated  Belgium,  Poland 
and  Northern  France,  that  burned  and  plundered 
defenceless  towns  and  villages,  and  outraged  and 
massacred  their  inhabitants.  It  was  not  the 
German  navy  only  that  sank  the  Lusitania,  Falaba, 
and  Arabic,  and  other  unarmed  ships  without  warn- 
ing, and  left  their  crews  and  passengers  to  perish. 
It  was  the  German  people,  hypnotized  by  the 
German  State. 

There  is,  however,  an  excuse  which  must  be  made 
for  the  people  as  well  as  for  the  army;  and  I  make 
it  the  more  readily  because  it  throws  light  on  one 
of  the  fundamental  defects  of  a  State-controlled  or 
a  law-controlled  morality.  He  who  is  moralized 
by  means  of  prohibitions  is  in  danger  of  becoming 
demoralized  whenever  the  negative  pressure  to 
which  he  has  been  subjected  is  withdrawn  or 
even  appreciably  relaxed.  For  he  is  apt  to  assume 
that  whatever  is  not  prohibited  is  right;  and  as 
his  natural  capacity  for  distinguishing  right  from 
wrong  has  been  atrophied  by  forced  inaction,  when 
there  is  no  one  to  prohibit  him,  or  when  the  neces- 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          161 

sary  prohibitions  have  not  been  formulated,  he 
becomes  like  a  ship  which  has  lost  its  rudder,  and 
is  therefore  at  the  mercy  of  the  winds  and  currents. 
As  it  is  with  the  individual,  so  it  is  with  a  people. 
When  the  present  war  began,  a  new  situation 
arose,  involving  many  new  sub-situations,  with 
which  the  soul  of  Germany,  owing  to  its  lack  of 
moral  sensibility  and  moral  initiative,  was  not 
prepared  to  cope.  A  machine-made  morality  is 
ill-fitted  to  stand  the  strain  of  a  sudden  crisis;  and 
the  greater  the  crisis,  the  more  likely  it  is  to  break 
down.  And  when  the  machine-made  morality  hap- 
pens to  be  controlled  and  directed  by  a  megalo- 
maniacal  ruler  who  is  the  centre  of  a  Chauvinistic 
ruling  caste,  it  may  well  be  that  in  the  general 
confusion  of  aims,  motives,  principles,  and  senti- 
ments which  a  great  crisis  is  apt  to  produce,  the 
only  principle  of  order  will  be  the  insatiable  ambi- 
tion of  that  ruler  and  of  that  caste,  which  will 
gradually  dominate  the  moral  chaos  by  inoculating 
the  people  with  its  own  vices  and  uniting  them 
under  its  own  piratical  flag. 


APPENDIX  A 

I  have  read  hundreds  of  well-authenticated 
stories  of  German  inhumanity.  The  following 
letter  to  The  Times  is  less  sensational  than  most 
of  those  stories;  but  the  eloquence  of  its  simple 
pathos  should  carry  conviction  to  the  mind  of  even 
the  most  stalwart  of  our  pro-German  apologists. 

"  As  one  of  a  party  of  three  representatives  of 
the  British  Red  Cross  returning  from  Serbia  by 


162         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

way  of  Russia  to  England,  I  have,  by  the  courtesy 
of  the  Russian  and  especially  of  the  Swedish 
authorities,  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  an 
exchange  of  wounded  German  and  Russian  prisoners. 
I  can  only  deeply  regret  that  representatives  of  all 
the  neutral  peoples  did  not  see  what  I  have  seen. 

'  The  exchange  took  place  at  the  Russo-Swedish 
frontier  between  Tornea  and  Haparanda  at  the 
head  of  the  Gulf  of  Bothnia.  The  Russian  prisoners 
returned  from  Germany  are  sent  by  water  to 
Stockholm.  There  they  are  loaded  on  barges, 
about  200  to  a  barge,  and,  under  care  of  the  Swedish 
Red  Cross,  are  transported  to  Tornea.  The  Ger- 
mans being  returned  from  Russia  are  brought  by 
train  to  Tornea  and  handed  over  to  the  Swedish 
authorities  at  Harapanda.  I  watched  the  dis- 
embarkation of  four  barge-loads  of  returning  Rus- 
sians, between  700  and  800  prisoners  in  all,  and 
spoke  to  many  of  them.  I  went  through  a  train  of 
returning  Germans  and  again  spoke  to  many  of  the 
men.  In  both  cases  every  possible  facility  was  given 
me  to  assure  myself  of  the  condition  of  the  prisoners. 

"It  is  difficult  to  find  words  to  describe  the 
dreadfulness  of  the  scene  at  Tornea.  Everything 
possible  had  been  done  to  invest  the  home-coming 
of  the  poor  Russians  with  an  air  of  festivity.  The 
pier  at  which  the  barges  discharged  was  lined  with 
Russian  troops.  A  distinguished  committee  was 
there  to  receive  the  prisoners.  Flags  fluttered.  A 
military  band  played  the  Russian  National  Anthem. 
Crowds  had  assembled  to  cheer  their  compatriots 
as  they  landed.  And  then  they  came;  and  I  shall 
never  forget  the  sight. 

"  I  may  claim,  from  my  hospital  experience,  to 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          163 

know  something  of  the  symptoms  of  health  and 
sickness.  These  people  who  crept  off  the  barges 
hardly  had  the  semblance  of  human  beings.  Any- 
thing more  pathetic  it  is  impossible  to  conceive. 
They  came  bent,  dazed  and  limping.  Every  man 
was  in  rags.  There  was  nothing  approaching  a 
complete  uniform  on  any  one.  Few  had  coats. 
Some  had  no  shirts.  Many  had  no  socks.  There 
was  not,  I  believe,  one  sound  pair  of  boots  among 
them.  Their  hair  was  untrimmed.  Some  of  the 
crippled  supported  themselves  on  crutches  carved 
from  the  lids  of  packing-cases  and  the  like.  The 
less  feeble  helped  the  others  to  walk.  Every  man 
was  emaciated  to  the  last  degree.  Some  had  lost 
their  wits  and  memory. 

"  They  advanced  slowly,  weakly,  with  their  eyes 
upon  the  ground,  without  a  smile,  without  a  hand 
waved  or  a  voice  raised  in  response  to  the  cheers 
with  which  they  were  greeted;  and,  as  the  waiting 
people  saw  what  they  were  like,  the  cheers  them- 
selves died  away,  and  the  awful  procession  went 
on  in  silence.  I  say,  unhesitatingly,  knowing  where- 
of I  speak,  that  nothing  but  continual  and  long- 
sustained  neglect  and  malnutrition  could  possibly 
have  reduced  those  men  to  the  condition  in  which 
I  saw  them.  Out  of  one  party  of  250  over  sixty 
had  developed  tuberculosis. 

'  The  Swedish  authorities,  as  I  have  said,  then 
invited  my  two  companions  and  myself  to  see  the 
other  side  of  the  picture,  and  we  mingled  and 
chatted  with  the  Germans  on  their  train.  The 
contrast  with  the  condition  of  the  Russians  was 
almost  indescribable.  There  was  not  one  German 
prisoner  who  was  not  in  his  full  uniform,  which  had 


164        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

been  taken  away  from  him  on  his  arrival  in  hospital 
and  carefully  kept  and  returned  to  him  clean  on 
his  discharge.  All  had  good  boots.  The  lame  were 
without  exception  furnished  with  proper  crutches. 

"  But  most  striking  of  all  were  the  physical  well- 
being  and  good  spirits  of  the  whole  party.  They 
were  well  nourished.  They  laughed  and  joked 
with  us  and  among  themselves.  It  was  evident  that 
they  had  been  treated  with  care,  and,  as  convales- 
cents, were  being  sent  home  as  physically  fit  as 
they  could  be  made.  I  say  with  certainty  that  it 
would  take  weeks  of  good  nourishment  and.  proper 
care  to  bring  the  Russians  whom  I  had  seen  to  the 
same  condition  of  well-being  as  the  Germans 
were  in. 

"  I  do  not  know  what,  if  anything,  can  be  done 
about  it,  or  how  the  facts  can  be  spread  about  so 
that  the  peoples  of  the  world  may  understand. 
For  my  part,  I  know  that,  if  the  Germans  had 
hitherto,  throughout  this  conflict,  borne  them- 
selves, so  far  as  the  world  knew,  with  moderation 
and  decency,  the  sights  which  I  saw  at  Tornea 
alone  would  convince  me  that  they  are  waging  this 
war  as  only  a  brutal  and  half-civilized  people  can 
wage  it.  Only  the  German  authorities  will  prob- 
ably ever  know  how  many  thousands  of  the  enemy 
wounded  in  their  hands  died  from  the  treatment 
which  produced  the  human  wreckage  which  I 
saw." 

APPENDIX  B 

Those  who  wish  to  study  the  evidence  furnished 
by  the  diaries  and  letters  of  German  soldiers  cannot 
do  better  than  read  Germany's  Violation  of  the  Laws 
of  War,  a  book  which  has  been  published  under  the 


BRUTALIZED   BY  DOCILITY          165 

auspices  of  the  French  Foreign  Office  and  translated 
into  English  by  Mr.  J.  O.  P.  Bland  (Heinemann) . 
Some  choice  extracts  from  this  book  appeared  in  a 
recent  review  of  it  in  the  Sunday  Times.  Here  are  a 
few  of  these — 

"  Mutilation  of  the  wounded  is  the  order  of  the 
day. 

"  Every  day  we  take  so  many,  many  prisoners. 
Now  they  are  shot  at  once,  for  we  have  taken  so 
many  we  don't  know  where  to  put  them. 

"  The  captain  called  us  round  and  said  :  '  In  the 
fort  we  are  going  to  take  there  will  very  probably 
be  English  soldiers.  But  I  don't  wish  to  see  any 
English  prisoners  with  my  company.'  A  general 
'  Bravo  !  '  of  approval  was  the  answer. 

"  They  (the  French)  lay  in  heaps  of  eight  or  ten 
wounded  or  dead.  Those  who  were  severely 
wounded  and  could  not  get  up  received  another 
bullet  which  put  an  end  to  them.  These  were 
our  orders.  .  .  . 

"  The  King  (of  Belgium)  having  directed  the 
people  to  defend  the  country  by  all  possible  means, 
we  have  received  orders  to  shoot  the  entire  male 
population.  At  Leffe  nineteen  civilians  shot.  At 
Dinant,  100  or  more  huddled  together  and  shot.  A 
horrible  Sunday  ! 

'  Through  Cail.  The  iron  bridge  had  been  blown 
up ;  for  this  whole  streets  were  burned  and  civilians 
shot. 

"  Marched  down  into  the  burning  village.  A 
terrific  spectacle  of  ghastly  beauty.  At  the  entrance 
to  the  village  lay  about  fifty  dead  civilians,  shot 
for  having  fired  upon  our  troops  from  ambush.  In 
the  course  of  the  night  many  others  were  shot,  so 


166        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

that  we  counted  over  200.  Women  and  children, 
lamp  in  hand,  were  forced  to  look  on  at  the  horrible 
scene.  We  ate  our  rice  in  the  midst  of  corpses. 

"  A  horrible  bath  of  blood.  The  whole  village 
(of  Sommepy)  burnt.  The  French  thrown  into  the 
blazing  houses,  civilians  burnt  with  the  rest. 

"  The  inhabitants  (of  a  village  near  Blamont) 
have  fled.  It  was  horrible.  There  was  clotted 
blood  on  all  the  beards,  and  what  faces  one  saw 
terrible  to  behold.  The  dead,  sixty  in  all,  were  at 
once  buried.  Among  them  many  old  women,  some 
old  men,  and  a  half-delivered  woman,  awful  to  see ; 
three  children  had  clasped  each  other  and  died  thus. 

"  The  village  (of  Saint  Maurice)  was  surrounded, 
men  posted  about  a  yard  from  one  another,  so  that 
no  one  could  get  out.  Then  the  Uhlans  set  fire  to 
it,  house  by  house.  Neither  man,  woman  nor  child 
could  escape.  All  the  inhabitants  left  in  the  village 
were  burnt  with  the  houses." 

APPENDIX  C 

The  Neueste  Nachrichten,  a  Munich  journal,  pub- 
lishes the  following  story— 

"  A  Bavarian  sharpshooter  who  was  picking  off 
French  soldiers  built  up  a  wall  of  corpses  to  act  as 
cover,  and  then  found  that  it  was  so  high  that  he 
could  not  fire  over  it.  He  at  once  summoned  a 
French  prisoner  and  compelled  him  to  act  as  a 
*  living  step.'  The  Frenchman  protested  that  he 
was  wounded.  *  That  is  very  likely/  the  Bavarian 
replied.  '  But  we  are  your  masters  now,  and  if 
you  don't  lie  down  I'll  crush  you  into  the  bargain  !  ' 

The  writer  of  the  paragraph  goes  into  ecstasies  over 
the  "  ingenuity  "  of  the  sharpshooter. 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          167 

APPENDIX  D 

The  following  are  extracts  from  Proclamations 
issued  by  German  commanding  officers — 

(To  the  inhabitants  of  Hasselt,  August  17,  1914.) 

"  In  case  the  inhabitants  fire  upon  the  soldiers  of 
the  German  Army  a  third  of  the  male  population 
will  be  shot." 

(To  the  Authorities  of  the  Commune  of  the  town 
of  Liege,  August  22,  1914.) 

"  The  inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Ardenne  .  .  . 
made  a  treacherous  surprise  attack  upon  our  troops.1 
With  my  consent  the  General  commanding  has 
burnt  the  whole  neighbourhood,  and  about  100 
people  have  been  shot." 

(Posted  at  Namur,  August  25,  1914.) 

"  Belgian  or  French  soldiers  must  be  handed  over 
as  prisoners  of  war  before  4  o'clock,  in  front  of  the 
prison.  Citizens  who  fail  to  obey  this  order  will  be 
sentenced  to  penal  servitude  for  life  in  Germany. 
A  rigorous  inspection  of  houses  will  begin  at  4  o'clock. 
Every  soldier  found  will  be  shot  at  once.  Arms, 
powder,  dynamite,  must  be  handed  over  at  4  o'clock. 
Penalty  to  be  shot.  Citizens  who  know  of  any  place 
where  arms  or  ammunition  were  deposited  must 
inform  the  Burgomaster  under  a  penalty  of  penal 
servitude  for  life." 

1  This  assertion  was  vehemently  denied  by  the  witnesses 
from  Ardenne  who  gave  evidence  before  the  Bryce  Com- 
mission. 


168        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

(Posted  at  Reims,  September  12,  1914.) 
"  Nothing  must  be  attempted  which  can  be  in 
any  way  injurious  to  the  German  Army.  In  order 
adequately  to  assure  the  safety  of  the  troops,  and 
to  guarantee  a  calm  attitude  on  the  part  of  the 
population  of  Reims,  the  persons  named  below 
(80  in  all)  have  been  taken  as  hostages  by  the 
German  High  Command.  These  hostages  will  be 
hanged  if  the  least  attempt  is  made  to  create  a 
disturbance ;  and  if  any  infraction  of  what  has  been 
laid  down  above  is  committed  the  town  will  be 
wholly  or  partially  burnt  and  the  inhabitants 
hanged." 

APPENDIX  E 

The  following  extract  is  indicative  of  the  real 
spirit  of  the  War  Book— 

"  A  war  conducted  with  energy  cannot  be  directed 
merely  against  the  combatants  of  the  enemy  State 
and  the  positions  they  occupy,  but  it  will,  and  must 
in  like  manner  seek  to,  destroy  the  total  intellectual 
and  material  resources  of  the  latter.  Humanitarian 
claims,  such  as  the  .protection  of  men  and  their 
goods,  can  only  be  taken  into  consideration  in  so 
far  as  the  nature  and  object  of  the  war  permit." 

The  word  '  intellectual '  in  this  passage  does  not 
adequately  render  the  German  word  '  Geistig.' 
'  What  the  passage  amounts  to/  says  Prof.  J.  H. 
Morgan,  '  is  that  the  belligerent  shall  seek  to  break 
the  spirit  of  the  civil  population,  terrorize  them, 
humiliate  them,  and  reduce  them  to  despair.'  The 
War  Book  insists  that  private  property  should 
always  be  respected.  To  loot  the  possessions  of 
an  absent  man  is  '  downright  burglary/  But  if 
the  '  necessity  of  war  '  makes  it  advisable,  '  every 


BRUTALIZED   BY   DOCILITY          169 

sequestration,  every  appropriation,  temporary  or 
permanent,  every  use,  every  injury,  and  all  destruc- 
tion are  permissible.'  ' 

APPENDIX  F 

Crimes  of  violence  escape  with  light  punish- 
ment in  Germany;  and  the  country  has  long  been 
notorious,  not  only  for  the  number  of  its  cases  of 
malicious  wounding,  but  also  for  wholesale  murders 
and  for  murders  of  a  peculiarly  revolting  type. 
"  I  write  dispassionately,"  says  Mr.  F.  W.  Wile 
(late  Berlin  correspondent  of  the  Daily  Mail),  "  as 
well  as  advisedly,  when  I  say  that  in  no  other  country 
in  the  world  with  pretensions  to  civilization  is  crime 
so  common,  diabolical  and  meaningless  as  among 
the  Germans.  This  does  not  mean  that  they  are  a 
race  of  murderers  all.  What  it  means  is  that  cal- 
lousness towards  brutality,  rapine  and  life-taking 
reaches  a  point  among  the  rank-and-file  of  German 
people  which  is  as  incredible  as  it  is  revolting.  .  .  . 

"  Without  once  straining  for  sensational  effect, 
there  was  hardly  a  day  during  my  eight  years  of 
service  as  Daily  Mail  correspondent  in  Berlin  that 
I  could  not  have  pandered  to  criminal  instincts  by 
cabling  news  of  horrifying  German  crime.  Often 
I  used  to  mark  in  red  in  the  evening  edition  of  my 
Lokal-Anzeiger  '  stories  '  dealing  with  crime.  Quite 
commonly  two-thirds  of  the  local  news  in  that 
salacious  Government-controlled  organ  would  con- 
sist of  reports  of  murder,  usually  accompanied  by 
suicide,  or  attempted  murder  and  successful  or 
attempted  suicide.  Murders  of  women  and  children 
are  commonest  of  all  in  Cultureland.  In  nine  cases 
out  of  ten  they  are  so-called  '  lust-murders.'  More 


170         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

often  than  not  they  are  executed  with  a  degree  of 
fiendish  brutality  which,  if  newspapers  were  not 
reporting  them  on  the  day  of  their  occurrence, 
would  make  you  think  you  were  reading  of  deeds 
committed  in  the  wilds  of  the  savage  jungle. 
Double,  triple,  quadruple — even  quintuple  and 
sextuple — murders  are  commoner  in  Germany  than 
murders  of  one  person  only.  You  will  often  read 
in  newspaper  accounts  of  German  crime  that  such- 
and-such  a  detail  is  '  unfit  for  reproduction/  In 
almost  every  murder  trial  the  public  is  excluded  at 
intervals  because  of  '  danger  of  offence  to  public 
morals.'  When  German  editors  have  to  hold  their 
noses  and  German  courts  to  be  cleared  for  fear  of 
violating  German  taste,  the  facts  in  question  may 
safely  be  regarded  as  the  zenith  of  horror  and 
iniquity,  for  Germans  are  not  a  squeamish  folk,  and 
no  one  gets  the  Iron  Cross  for  excessive  morality." 

Since  the  war  began,  there  has  been  an  increase, 
rather  than  a  decrease,  in  serious  crime  in  Germany. 
A  newspaper  correspondent,  in  a  letter  from  Amster- 
dam dated  July  29,  1915,  writes  as  follows — 

'  The  German  who  still  has  a  thought  to  spare 
for  the  social  well-being  of  his  country,  apart  from 
the  war,  is  beginning  to  be  alarmed  at  the  increase 
of  crime  of  the  worst  order  reported  from  different 
parts  of  the  Empire.  From  July  20  to  24  intel- 
ligence of  no  fewer  than  twenty-three  murders  is 
given.  .  .  .  The  list  of  twenty-three  murders  does 
not  represent  the  number  of  victims,  as  I  have 
included,  for  instance,  the  wholesale  slaughter  of  his 
family  by  a  Landwehr  trooper,  recently  returned 
from  Belgium,  of  his  father,  mother,  two  sisters 
and  a  nephew." 


BRUTALIZED   BY  DOCILITY          171 

And  this  increase  in  serious  crime  seems  to  be 
symptomatic  of  widespread  demoralization.  A 
student  of  German  newspapers,  writing  in  the  Daily 
Express  of  Feb.  4,  1916,  says  :  "  It  is  almost  impos- 
sible to  open  a  Berlin  newspaper  in  these  days 
without  coming  across  a  bitter  denunciation  of  the 
immorality  of  the  people,  the  criminal  activities  of 
the  '  lower  orders/  the  astounding  depravity  of  the 
juvenile  population,  the  indecency  of  theatrical 
productions,  or  the  gross  character  of  the  literature 
which  is  offered  for  sale  all  over  the  city." 


APPENDIX  G 

The  following  stories,  which  are  told  in  the 
Report  of  the  French  Commission  of  Inquiry  on 
German  Atrocities,  bear  witness  to  the  ingrained 
barbarity  of  some  at  least  of  the  German  soldiers: 
"  In  a  suburb  of  Nomeny,  a  little  town  in  the 
Meurthe  and  Moselle  Department,  a  man  named 
Vasse  and  his  friends  who  were  hidden  in  his  cellar 
were  driven  out  by  the  Germans,  who  set  fire  to 
the  house,  and  who  waited  for  the  wretched  refugees 
to  come  out  like  rats  from  a  burning  building.  The 
first  man,  named  Mentre,  was  shot  on  the  doorstep, 
whilst  his  son  Leon,  carrying  an  eight-year-old 
sister,  not  being  shot  outright,  a  German  soldier 
put  the  barrel  of  his  gun  to  his  head  and  blew  out 
his  brains.  The  Keiffer  family  then  tried  to  escape 
the  flames.  The  mother  was  wounded  in  the  arm 
and  shoulder.  The  father,  a  little  boy  of  ten,  and 
a  little  girl  of  three,  were  shot  down.  Their  butchers 
continued  firing  as  they  lay  on  the  ground. 
M.  Keiffer  received  a  second  bullet  in  the  forehead, 


172         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

and  his  son  had  his  head  blown  off.  A  man  named 
Striffert  and  one  of  M.  Vasse's  sons  were  then 
massacred,  while  Mme.  Mentre  received  three  bullet 
wounds.  A  working  man,  M.  Guillaume,  was 
dragged  into  the  street  and  shot.  Last  of  all,  a 
seventeen-year-old  girl,  Mile.  Simonin,  came  out 
of  the  cellar  with  her  three-year-old  sister  Jeanne 
in  her  arms.  The  baby's  elbow  was  shot  away  by 
a  bullet.  The  elder  sister  threw  herself  on  the 
ground  and  pretended  death.  A  soldier  kicked 
her.  Finally  an  officer  put  an  end  to  this  butchery 
and  ordered  the  woman,  still  alive,  to  go  to  the 
French  lines." 

"  A  man  named  Adnot,  with  his  wife  and  four 
children,  aged  eleven,  five,  four  and  eighteen 
months,  sought  refuge  in  a  cellar  with  a  neighbour, 
Mme.  X.  Some  days  later  the  corpses  of  these 
unfortunate  people  were  discovered  lying  in  the 
middle  of  a  pool  of  blood.  M.  Adnot  was  shot, 
and  Mme.  X.  had  a  breast  and  right  arm  cut  off. 
The  little  girl  of  eleven  had  her  foot  cut  off.  The 
boy  of  five  had  his  throat  cut.  Mme.  X.  and  the 
eleven-year-old  child  had  been  outraged  before 
death." 

Many  of  the  atrocious  acts  which  have  disgraced 
the  German  army  were  done  in  obedience  to 
authoritative  orders;  and  there  were  others  which, 
though  neither  ordered  nor  formally  sanctioned  by 
authority,  seem  to  have  been  tacitly  permitted. 
But  I  cannot  believe  that  such  acts  of  wanton  and 
purposeless  cruelty  as  these  stories  record  could 
have  been  either  ordered  or  permitted  by  the 
officers  in  command. 


CHAPTER  VII 

BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY 

IN  the  summer  of  1914  Germany  made  a  sudden 
but  long-premeditated  spring  at  the  throat  of  the 
civilized  world.  Her  intention  was  to  deal  first 
with  France  and  Russia,  and,  having  "  knocked 
these  out/'  to  settle  accounts  with  Britain  and  the 
British  Empire.  The  turn  of  the  United  States 
and  Latin  America  would  come  next.  During  her 
brief  struggle  with  France,  either  Belgium  or  Swit- 
zerland would  be  absorbed,  possibly  both.  During 
her  struggle  with  the  British  Empire,  the  Balkan 
Kingdoms  and  Turkey  would  become  her  vassals. 
When  the  war  was  over,  Austro-Hungary  would 
have  been  placed  in  a  position  of  economic  serfdom 
to  her  ally,  and  therefore,  though  nominally  inde- 
pendent, would  have  ceased  to  be  an  autonomous 
State.  So  would  the  small  nations  of  Northern 
Europe — Holland,  Denmark,  Norway  and  Sweden. 
The  same  or  a  worse  fate  would  have  befallen  Italy. 
Mistress  of  Europe,  America,  and  the  British  Empire, 
and  enriched  by  the  enormous  indemnities  which 
she  would  have  exacted  from  her  conquered  enemies, 
Germany  would  then  turn  her  arms  against  Japan 
and  China,  and  would  thus  complete  the  conquest 
of  the  world. 

That  the  war  which  was  to  achieve  these  vast 
173 


174        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

results  had  been  long  premeditated  is  known  to  all 
who  had  studied  the  copious  literature  of  Pan- 
Germanism,  and  followed  the  naval  and  military 
preparations  of  Germany,  during  the  twenty  years 
or  so  that  preceded  the  outbreak  of  hostilities. 
That  Germany  chose  her  own  time  for  beginning 
the  war,  that  she  made  the  assassination  of  the 
Austrian  Archduke  and  Archduchess  the  pretext 
for  action  which  had  already  been  decided  upon, 
and  the  date  for  which  had  already  been  fixed,  is 
known  to  all  who,  like  the  German  author  of 
/' Accuse  and  the  English  author  of  The  Twelve 
Days,  have  studied  and  collated  the  State  Papers, — 
Red,  Blue,  Yellow,  Orange,  White  and  Grey,— 
issued  by  the  various  belligerent  countries,  and  to 
all  the  readers  of  those  two  convincing  digests.  It 
is  true  that,  in  order  to  impose  on  his  credulous 
subjects  and  persuade  them  that  they  were  fighting 
for  their  hearths  and  homes,  the  German  Emperor 
has  always  protested  that  the  war  was  forced  upon 
Germany  by  her  aggressive  neighbours,  under  the 
leadership  of  her  jealous  commercial  rival — England ; 
and  it  is  even  true  that  more  than  once  he  has 
called  Heaven  to  witness  that  his  hands  were  clean 
in  this  grave  matter,  that  he  had  always  laboured 
for  peace  while  his  malignant  enemies  were  making 
them  ready  for  battle,  and  that  the  responsibility 
for  this  terrible  catastrophe  rested  on  any  shoulders 
but  his.  But  these  solemn  disclaimers  are  meant 
for  home  consumption  only.  The  obedient  German 
will  believe  whatever  he  is  told  to  believe.  But  in 
neutral  countries,  where  men  are  free  to  look  facts 
in  the  face  and  draw  the  necessary  inferences  from 
them,  the  plain  fact  that  Germany  was  fully  pre- 


BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY  175 

pared  for  the  struggle,  and  that  her  enemies  were 
so  ill-prepared  that  even  now,  after  eighteen  months 
of  fighting,  they  have  scarcely  got  into  their  respec- 
tive strides,  is  accepted  as  a  conclusive  answer  to 
the  Kaiser's  laboured  attempts  at  self-exculpation. 
It  is  a  relief  to  turn  from  his  hypocritical  whinings 
to  the  manly  avowal  of  Germany's  one  honest 
journalist,  Herr  Maximilian  Harden.  On  October  17, 
1914,  this  enfant  terrible  of  the  German  Press  uttered 
— and  was  allowed  to  utter — the  following  memor- 
able words  :  "  Let  us  drop  our  miserable  attempts 
to  excuse  Germany's  action.  Let  us  have  done 
with  paltry  abuse  of  the  enemy.  Not  against  our 
will,  as  a  nation  taken  by  surprise,  did  we  hurl 
ourselves  into  this  gigantic  venture.  We  willed 
it,  we  had  to  will  it.  We  do  not  stand  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  Europe;  we  acknowledge  no  such 
jurisdiction.  Our  might  shall  create  a  new  law  in 
Europe.  It  is  Germany  that  strikes.  When  she  has 
conquered  new  dominions  for  her  genius,  then  the 
priesthoods  of  all  the  Gods  will  praise  the  good 
War."  i 

On  the  battlefield  of  the  Marne  Germany's  tiger- 
spring  miscarried.  With  the  failure  of  her  attempt 
to  deal  France  a  knock-out  blow,  it  became  pos- 
sible for  the  Entente  Powers  to  summon  a  mighty 
ally  to  their  aid — Time.  As  the  relief  which 
Time  brought,  however  slowly,  to  their  arms 

1  While  the  negotiations  which  preceded  the  war  were 
in  progress,  Herr  Maximilian  Harden  had  said  with  character- 
istic candour  :  "  Why  not  admit  what  is  and  must  be 
true,  namely,  that  between  Vienna  and  Berlin  everything 
was  jointly  prepared  ?  "  A  naive  admission,  this,  of  a 
vital  truth  which  the  Chancelleries  of  Vienna  and  Berlin 
had  assiduously  laboured  to  conceal  ! 


176         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

began  to  take  effect,  Germany  realized  that  her 
dream  of  universal  dominion  was  shattered,  and 
that  thenceforth  she  was  fighting  either  for  a 
Pyrrhic  victory  or  for  a  barren  draw.  The  verdict 
of  history  will  almost  certainly  be  that  in  losing 
the  battle  of  the  Marne  Germany  lost  the  war, — 
lost  it,  not  perhaps  in  the  sense  that  thereafter  she 
was  doomed  to  look  forward  to  final  defeat,  but  in 
the  sense  of  having  failed,  for  good  and  all,  to 
attain  the  end  for  which  she  drew  the  sword. 

Yet  even  before  the  battle  of  the  Marne  began, 
victory  for  Germany  had  been  imperilled  by 
England's  entry  into  the  war.  What  the  battle 
of  the  Marne  did,  among  other  things,  was  to  frus- 
trate Germany's  attempt  to  separate  England  from 
her  Allies  by  crushing  her  near  neighbour,  France. 
In  the  words  of  Mr.  A.  H.  Pollen,  the  distinguished 
naval  expert :  "  From  the  first  their  (the  Germans) 
very  great  superiority  on  land  was,  at  every  point, 
manifest.  Their  object  was  to  use  this  superiority 
to  get  an  immediate  decision  against  France,  be- 
cause, as  soon  as  Great  Britain  was  in  the  war, 
France  was  the  only  one  of  the  two  Allies  with 
which  Great  Britain  could  co-operate  effectually. 
If  France  were  crushed  Germany  would  be  dealing 
with  two  isolated  enemies.  Russia  could  not  long 
have  held  out  once  the  united  Austro-German 
forces,  undisturbed  by  a  war  in  the  west,  could  be 
concentrated  against  her." 

The  battle  of  the  Marne,  then,  was  a  decisive 
defeat  for  Germany,  not  only  because  it  saved 
France,  once  and  for  all,  from  being  overwhelmed 
by  German  arms, — not  only  because  it  compelfed 
Germany  to  fight  at  full  strength  on  two  fronts 


BETRAYED   BY  DOCILITY  177 

instead  of,  as  she  had  hoped  to  do,  after  a  brief  cam- 
paign, on  one  only, — but  also,  and  more  especially, 
because  it  made  it  possible  for  England,  as  the  ally 
of  France  and  enemy  of  Germany,  to  put  forth  her 
full  strength  by  land  as  well  as  by  sea.  In  other 
words,  besides  being  in  itself  a  decisive  factor  in 
Germany's  provisional  failure,  the  battle  of  the 
Marne  gave  full  effect  to  another  and  equally 
decisive  factor — the  entry  of  England  into  the  war. 
It  follows  that,  in  order  to  understand  why  Ger- 
many, in  spite  of  the  overwhelming  advantages 
which  she  possessed  at  the  outbreak  of  hostilities, 
has  so  far  failed  to  win  the  victory  on  which  she 
had  confidently  reckoned,  and  which  had  to  be  won 
quickly  if  it  was  to  be  complete,  we  must  ask  our- 
selves two  questions, — why  did  England  come  into 
the  war,  and  why  did  Germany  lose  the  battle  of 
the  Marne? 

Before  we  attempt  to  answer  these  questions, 
let  us  ask  ourselves  a  third.  I  have  postulated  the 
superior  strength  of  Germany  at  the  outbreak  of 
hostilities.  Is  this  postulate  justified?  If  it  is, 
why  and  how  and  in  what  degree  was  Germany 
stronger  than  her  adversaries?  That  the  odds 
were  on  her  side  when,  in  alliance  with  Austria,  she 
challenged  Russia  and  France  to  mortal  combat, 
that  she  knew  them  to  be  on  her  side,  and  therefore 
expected  an  early  decision  in  her  favour,  is  proved 
by  the  spirit  of  assurance  in  which  she  "  hurled  " 
herself  "  into  the  gigantic  venture/'  England, 
France,  and  Russia  went  into  the  war  reluctantly 
and  with  heavy  hearts.  Germany  went  into  it 
with  shouts  of  exultant  joy.  "  It  is  a  joy  to  live," 
said  one  of  the  leading  Pan-German  organs  on 

N 


178         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

August  3,  1914;  "we  have  called  for  this  hour 
with  our  most  ardent  prayers.  At  last  the  holy 
hour  has  struck  !  The  Russians,  false  and  per- 
fidious up  to  the  last;  the  French,  flabby  and  sud- 
denly forgetful  of  their  thirst  for  the  revanche  ;  and 
England,  coldly  calculating  and  hesitating,  whilst 
the  German  people  is  shrieking  with  delight." 

The  German  people  had  good  ground  for  their 
confidence.  All  the  winning  cards  seemed  to  be 
in  their  hands.  '  The  first  phase  of  the  war," 
says  Mr.  Pollen,  "  saw  the  German  Allies  enormously 
superior  in  numbers,  and  with  a  ratio  of  field  guns, 
of  siege  guns,  and,  above  all,  of  machine  guns,  far 
higher  than  that  possessed  by  their  opponents. 
They  had  the  advantage  of  a  long-considered  plan 
and  they  chose  their  own  moment  for  striking." 
They  had  the  further  advantage,  Mr.  Pollen  might 
have  added,  of  undivided  counsels,  of  a  central 
position,  of  a  complete  system  of  strategic  rail- 
ways, and  of  immense  and  highly  centralized 
manufacturing  resources  which  could  easily  and 
immediately  be  made  available  for  the  equipment 
of  their  forces.  In  fine  and  in  brief,  Germany  was 
ready  for  war.  The  Entente  Powers  were  not. 

The  German  Allies  "  had  the  advantage  of  a 
long-considered  plan,  and  they  chose  their  own 
moment  for  striking."  Of  all  the  advantages  with 
which  they  began  the  war,  this  was  the  greatest; 
for  all  their  other  advantages  may  be  said  to  have 
been  determined  by  this,  and  to  have  been  under 
its  full  control.  Superiority  in  numbers,  in  guns, 
in  strategic  railways,  and  in  manufacturing  resources 
was  part  of  Germany's  "  long-considered  plan  " ; 
and  the  plan  had  been, long  considered,  and  was 


BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY  179 

therefore  fully  thought  out  both  in  principle  and 
in  detail,  because  Germany  had  determined  to  strike 
at  a  moment  of  her  own  choosing. 

The  words  which  I  have  emphasized  deserve  our 
closest  attention.  It  is  only  by  choosing  its  own 
time  for  beginning  a  war  that  a  nation  can  be  fully 
prepared  for  it.  If  a  nation  foresees  that  sooner 
or  later  a  war  with  certain  other  nations  will  prob- 
ably come,  and  if  it  has  determined  that  such  a 
war  shall  come,  the  only  way  to  be  fully  prepared 
for  it  is  to  resolve  beforehand  to  begin  it  on  a 
certain  date.  Otherwise  the  cost  of  preparing  for 
it  would  be  prohibitive.  For  not  only  would  the 
cost  of  being  always  completely  equipped  for  war, 
even  if  equipment  never  became  obsolete,  put  an 
intolerable  strain  on  the  finances  of  any  country, 
but  also,  owing  to  the  rapid  development  of  military 
science  on  its  mechanical  and  industrial  side,  what 
was  complete  equipment  at  a  given  date  would  be 
incomplete  equipment  a  year  later,  so  that  supple- 
mentary estimates  on  a  large  scale  would  be  con- 
stantly called  for.  "  No  peaceful  nations,"  says 
Mr.  Belloc,  "  no  nations  not  designing  war  at  their 
own  hour,  lock  up  in  armaments  which  may  be 
rendered  obsolete,  or  in  equipment  more  extensive 
than  the  reasonable  chances  of  a  campaign  may 
demand,  the  public  resources  which  they  can  use 
on  what  they  regard  as  more  useful  things.  Such 
nations,  to  use  a  just  metaphor,  '  insure  '  against 
war  at  what  they  think  a  reasonable  rate.  But  if 
some  one  Government  in  Europe  is  anarchic  in  its 
morals,  and  purposes,  while  professing  peace,  to 
declare  war  at  an  hour  and  a  day  chosen  by  itself, 
it  will  obviously  have  an  overwhelming  advantage 


180        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

in  this  respect.  The  energy  and  the  money  which 
it  devotes  to  the  single  object  of  preparation  cannot 
possibly  be  wasted,  and,  if  the  sudden  aggression 
is  not  fixed  too  far  ahead,  will  not  run  the  risk  of 
being  sunk  in  obsolete  weapons." 

In  the  summer  of  1911,  Germany,  finding  that 
there  were  strong  financial  objections  to  her  allow- 
ing her  quarrel  with  France  over  Morocco  to 
develop  into  an  open  rupture,  decided  to  wait  till 
the  summer  of  1914  before  beginning  the  "  preven- 
tive war  "  against  France  and  Russia  to  which  she 
had  so  long  looked  forward.  She  accordingly 
spent  those  three  years  in  what  Mr.  Belloc  calls 
"  determined  and  largely  secret  preparation."  But 
the  work  of  those  three  years  did  but  crown  and 
complete  the  work  of  the  forty  years  that  preceded 
them.  As  soon  as  she  had  crushed  France  in  1871, 
Germany  began  to  prepare  for  the  war  which  her 
humiliation  and  dismemberment  of  France  had 
made  probable,  if  not  inevitable.  When  that  war 
would  come  was  doubtful,  but  that,  sooner  or  later, 
it  would  come  was  practically  certain.  For,  apart 
from  the  fact  that  France  could  scarcely  be  expected 
to  acquiesce  in  the  loss  of  her  ravished  provinces, 
Germany  might  plead  that  a  war  of  conquest 
would  some  day  or  other  be  forced  upon  her  by 
pressure  from  within, — on  the  one  hand,  by  the 
need  for  using  the  mighty  instrument  which  she 
had  fashioned  and  was  ever  perfecting,  and  which 
tended  more  and  more  to  acquire  an  aggressive 
personality  of  its  own, — on  the  other  hand,  by  the 
need  for  providing  an  outlet  for  the  defiant  dogma- 
tism of  her  over-docile  people,  and  for  distract- 
ing their  minds  from  domestic  politics  and  social 


BETRAYED   BY  DOCILITY  181 

and  political  discontents.  For  all  these  reasons 
she  looked  forward  to  war — to  war  on  a  great 
scale  and  against  powerful  enemies — as  an  end  for 
which  she  must  make  the  fullest  possible  prepara- 
tion, and  which  she  must  begin  at  an  hour  of  her 
own  choosing  if  the  labour  of  those  years  of  peace 
was  to  be  made  effective  and  fruitful. 

During  the  years  of  preparation  and  pre-prepara- 
tion — forty-three  in  all — Germany  meditated  war, 
thought  war,  studied  war,  planned  war  in  all  its 
details.  It  is  said  that  her  output  of  books  on  the 
science  and  art  of  war  is  greater,  and  has  long  been 
greater,  than  that  of  all  other  nations  put  together. 
Not  without  reason  did  she  regard  herself  as  a  pro- 
fessional in  the  art  of  war,  and  all  other  nations  as 
amateurs.  Having  an  autocratic  Government  and 
a  State-controlled  Press,  she  could  make  her  pre- 
parations with  a  fixity  of  purpose,  a  secrecy,  and  a 
thoroughness  which  would  be  impossible  in  coun- 
tries where  there  was  responsible  Government  and 
a  free  Press.  Taking  advantage  of  her  central 
position,  she  constructed  a  complete  system  of 
strategic  railways  which  would  enable  her  to 
mobilize  her  army  with  baffling  speed,  to  advance 
far  into  hostile  territory  before  her  enemies  were 
ready  to  meet  her,  and,  in  the  event  of  her  having 
to  fight  simultaneously  on  two  fronts,  to  throw  her 
forces  rapidly  from  side  to  side  as  well  as  from 
place  to  place,  and  so  be  in  superior  strength  at 
every  critical  point  in  her  battle  line.  With  the 
same  end  in  view,  she  gave  great  attention  to  the 
development  of  road  traction.  Unknown  to  her 
neighbours,  she  constructed  mortars  of  unprece- 
dented calibre,  and  amassed  immense  quantities 


182        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

of  machine  guns,  both  of  which  weapons,  as  she 
rightly  divined,  would  play  decisive  parts  in  the 
coming  war.  Cannon,  shells,  rifles,  cartridges, 
clothing,  boots,  and  equipment  of  every  kind  she 
stored  up  in  quantities  which  it  would  take  many 
months  of  fighting  on  a  vast  scale  to  exhaust;  and 
as  her  manufacturing  industries  were  highly  cen- 
tralized, and  as  their  captains — the  inner  ring  of 
capitalists  and  manufacturers — were  in  close  touch 
with  the  Government,  she  had  made  full  provision 
for  replenishing  her  stores  as  they  became  ex- 
hausted. Nothing  that  forethought,  ingenuity,  and 
industry  could  provide  had  been  forgotten  or 
omitted.  The  docility  of  her  rank-and-file  had 
enabled  the  ruling  minority  to  develop  a  capacity 
for  mechanical  organization  which  has  never  been 
equalled;  and  to  the  organization  of  her  army  and 
her  military  resources  she  had  given  the  best  of 
her  brain-power,  her  energy,  and  her  labour. 

Her  central  position  and  her  alliance  with  Austria 
were  assets  of  which  she  made  full  use.  The  two 
empires  contain  nearly  half  a  million  of  square 
miles  in  the  very  heart  of  Europe.  Their  coasts 
are  washed  by  three  seas.  Their  material  resources, 
especially  in  food-stuffs  and  minerals,  are  very 
great.  With  a  population  of  120,000,000,  they  can 
easily  put  12,000,000  men  of  fighting  age  in  the 
field.  When  the  war  broke  out,  they  did  not 
merely  dispose  of  these  vast  numbers.  They  were 
able  to  train,  arm,  and  equip  them,  and  send  them 
into  the  fighting  line  with  a  rapidity  which,  if  they 
chose  their  own  time  for  beginning  the  war,  would 
enable  them  to  overwhelm  their  enemies,  first  on 
one  front  and  then  on  the  other.  The  alliance 


BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY  183 

between  the  two  countries  was,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  closer  and  more  effective  than  that  which 
united  the  three  Entente  Powers.  Germany  and 
Austria  are  adjoining  countries.  The  ruling  classes 
in  Austria  1  are  Germans.  The  two  countries  have 
many  interests  in  common,  especially  in  the  face 
of  a  hostile  Russia.  But  in  material  strength,  in 
administrative  capacity,  and  in  military  organiza- 
tion Austria  is  far  inferior  to  Germany;  and  she 
has  what  I  may  call  a  much  weaker  personality. 
Hence  it  was  certain  that,  when  the  two  countries 
were  fighting  against  a  common  enemy,  Austria 
would  be  dominated  by  Germany,  and  that  the 
joint  resources  of  the  two  countries  would  therefore 
be  controlled  by  a  single  will.  With  the  Entente 
Powers  it  was  different.  Separated  as  they  are 
from  one  another  by  hostile  territory  or  by  the 
"  estranging  sea,"  it  was  inevitable  that  each  of 
the  three  countries  should  have  independent  con- 
trol of  its  own  resources,  and  carry  out  its  own  plan 
of  campaign.  Co-operation  between  them  was,  of 
course,  possible,  but  co-ordination  of  their  aims 
and  efforts  was  rendered  very  difficult,  not  only 
by  the  partial  divergence  of  their  respective  in- 
terests, but  also  by  the  remoteness  of  Russia  from 
the  Western  Powers  and  the  difficulty  of  communi- 
cating with  her,  especially  after  Germany  had 
dragged  Turkey  into  the  quarrel.  So  many  win- 
ning cards  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Central  Powers 
that,  even  if  they  had  drifted  into  war  or  been 
forced  into  it,  they  would  have  opened  the 

1  In  Austria,  not  in  Hungary.  But  in  their  hostility  to 
Russia  and  to  Slav  pretensions  generally,  the  Magyars 
are  more  German  than  the  Germans  themselves. 


184        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

campaign  with  nearly  everything  in  their  favour. 
By  striking  at  the  precise  moment  which  they  had 
selected  beforehand  and  carefully  prepared  for, 
they  more  than  doubled  their  advantages. 

Why,  then,  did  Germany  fail  to  win  the  speedy 
victory  on  which  she  had  reckoned  with  confidence, 
and  not  without  good  reason?  Chiefly,  I  think, 
because,  owing  to  certain  defects  in  the  national 
character,  she  made  miscalculations  at  the  outset, 
the  consequences  of  which  are  with  her  still.  Of 
the  nature  and  origin  of  those  defects  of  character 
I  have  already  spoken.  An  ultra-docile  people  will 
be  ruled,  of  inner  necessity,  by  an  arrogant  and 
dogmatic  minority ;  and  the  arrogance  and  dogma- 
tism of  that  minority  will  gradually  filter  down 
through  all  social  strata,  spreading  laterally  as  they 
descend,  till  the  whole  nation  has  become  infected 
with  their  poison.  The  Nietzschean  ethical  philo- 
sophy, which  recognizes  one  morality  for  masters 
and  another  for  slaves,  is  based  on  ignorance  of 
human  nature.  It  is  for  their  own  sakes,  even 
more  than  for  the  sake  of  the  oppressed  and  afflicted, 
that  men  become  compassionate  and  merciful. 
And  the  slave  is  so  far  from  asking  for  a  new 
morality  to  be  framed  in  his  interests,  that  he 
will  go  out  of  his  way  to  make  the  morality  of 
his  master  his  model.  Invest  him  with  brief  and 
partial  authority,  and  he  will  bully  his  underlings 
worse  than  he  has  been  bullied  himself.  Invite 
him  to  lay  down  the  law,  and  he  will  out-dogmatize 
the  dogmatist  whose  word  is  his  law  and  at  whose 
voice  he  trembles.  The  explanation  of  this  pheno- 
menon is  simple.  If  imitativeness  were  not  of  the 


BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY  185 

essence  of  docility,  the  docile  would  be  drilled  and 
disciplined  in  vain.  For  their  function  is  to  defer 
to  authority ;  and  to  imitate  an  example  is  an  even 
surer  proof  of  deference  than  to  obey  a  command. 
The  division  of  a  people  into  masters  and  slaves 
is  to  be  deprecated  for  many  reasons;  but  chiefly 
because  the  vices — the  magisterial  vices — of  the 
masters  will,  sooner  or  later,  determine  the  moral 
ideals  of  the  whole  community. 

This  is  what  is  happening  in  Germany.     Taken 
very  seriously  by  the  ultra-docile  multitude,  the 
ruling  castes  and  classes  have  got  into  the  way  of 
taking  themselves  very  seriously,  of  making  them- 
selves their  own  ideal,  of  looking  at  things  exclu- 
sively from  their  own  point  of  view.     Hence  their 
inordinate   self-esteem;    hence   their  utter  lack  of 
imaginative  sympathy, — defects    which,   owing    to 
the  ascendancy  of  "  the  State "    and   its   officers 
and  officials  over  the  nation,  have  become  central 
features  of  the  national  character.     These  defects 
are  the  rocks  on  which  Germany's  scheme  of  self- 
aggrandisement  has  split  and  foundered.     For,  on 
the  one  hand,  owing  to  her  lack  of  imaginative 
sympathy,  she  gravely  miscalculated  the  probable 
action  of  her  enemies ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  owing 
to  her  inordinate  self-esteem,  she  gravely  under- 
estimated their  patriotic  spirit  and  moral  resources. 
For  the  moment  I  have  separated  the  two  sources 
of    Germany's    miscalculation.      In    reality    they 
readily  coalesce  into  one.     The  self-esteem  which 
makes  a  man's  thoughts  and  interests  centre  in 
himself,  and  prevents  him  from  looking  at  things 
from  any  other  point  of  view,  has  lack  of  imagina- 
tive  sympathy   as   its   necessary   counterpart.     If 


186        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

Germany,  as  "  The  Day  "  drew  near,  misinterpreted 
the  motives  and  miscalculated  the  policy  of  the 
Entente  Powers,  the  chief  reason  was  that  she  had 
persistently  under-valued  their  respective  charac- 
ters. Even  the  children  in  her  schools  had  been 
taught  to  despise  her  future  enemies  as  well  as  to 
hate  them.  It  is  said  that  on  the  morning  of  the 
day  of  Waterloo,  Napoleon,  when  he  saw  Welling- 
ton's army  drawn  up  before  him,  told  the  generals 
on  his  staff  that  an  easy  victory  awaited  him;  and 
that  when  the  generals,  who  had  learnt  to  know 
and  respect  the  British  soldiers,  warned  him  against 
under-rating  them,  he  angrily  reiterated  his  con- 
viction that  they  were  bad  soldiers  led  by  a  bad 
general,  and  that  the  coming  battle  would  be  an 
"affaire  d'un  dejeuner."  The  arrogance  of  Ger- 
many, on  the  eve  of  the  Titan\ic  struggle  which 
she  had  willed  and  provoked,  outdid  that  of  Napo- 
leon. And  what  adds  to  its  significance  is  that  it 
was  the  outcome  of  genuine,  heartfelt  contempt. 
There  was  no  pose  about  it,  no  idle  bluster.  The 
Entente  nations  were  not  German;  and  their  ways 
were  not  the  ways  of  Germany.  What  more  need 
be  said?  Had  they  been  her  friends,  it  would  not 
have  been  necessary  for  her  to  take  their  respective 
measures.  As  they  had  crossed  her  path,  she 
measured  them,  one  and  all — measured  them  by 
the  standard  of  her  own  strength  and  greatness— 
and  pronounced  them  to  be  unworthy  of  her  steel. 
And  she  accepted  this  verdict  as  final.  The  infe- 
riority of  her  rivals  was  to  her  a  self-evident  truth. 
In  the  insanity  of  her  self-idealization,  she  seriously 
believed  that  any  divergence  from  the  path  of  her 
"  Kultur  "  was  a  declension  from  human  worth. 


BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY  187 

We  have  seen  that  the  Pan-German  movement 
was  mainly  supported  by  the  "  intellectuals  "  of 
Germany  and  German  Austria.  In  the  literature 
of  Pan-Germanism  contempt  of  the  Entente  Powers 
knows  no  limits.  "It  is  difficult  to  say,"  writes 
Mr.  E.  B.  Osborn  of  the  "  German  patriot/'  "  which 
of  the  Allied  nations  seems  most  contemptible  in 
his  spectacled  eyes.  To  him  the  English  are  a 
stupid  and  unstable  mob,  having  no  thought  for 
anything  save  the  panem  et  circenses  (the  cheap 
breakfast-table  and  professional  football),  which 
are  paid  for  out  of  wealth  procured  by  the  easy 
conquest  of  uncivilized  races  in  every  part  of  the 
world.  He  looks  upon  the  French  as  a  used-up 
and  neurotic  crowd,  a  feminine  people,  moreover, 
who  are  manifestly  incapable  of  doing  anything 
more  for  the  world's  civilization.  And  Russia,  he 
believes,  is  occupied  by  a  horde  of  mere  animals — 
'  apes,'  according  to  Treitschke — whose  bestiality 
is  concealed  under  a  thin  veneering  of  man-like 
manners."  The  military  strength  of  the  Allies 
was  on  a  par,  when  Pan-Germanism  estimated  it, 
with  their  moral  worth.  "  The  French,"  said  the 
Berliner  Post  of  April  21,  1913,  "  have  sunk  to  so 
low  a  level  in  all  the  virtues  of  a  strong  and  proud 
nation  that  from  the  military  standpoint  it  must 
be  regarded  as  a  doubtful  pleasure  to  have  to  fight 
them."  "  The  English,"  said  a  German  general, 
on  the  eve  of  the  battle  of  the  Marne,  to  a  French 
lady  who  was  his  unwilling  hostess,  "  are  without 
the  least  importance  on  land;  and  as  for  the 
Russians,  they  simply  do  not  know  what  an  army 
is."1 

1  Compare  footnote  to  p.  91. 


188         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

It  was  in  this  spirit  of  unbounded  self-confidence 
that  Germany  awaited  the  fateful  "  Day."     In  her 
choice  of  "  the  Day  "  she  had  been  guided,  in  the 
main,  by  the  state  of  her  naval  and  military  pre- 
parations; but  so  far  as  the  domestic  affairs  of  her 
enemies   were   concerned,    she   could   not   possibly 
have  made  a  happier  choice.     It  looked  as  if  For- 
tune, according  to  her  wont,  had  resolved  to  favour 
the  bold.     France  was  in  the  throes  of  social  and 
political  convulsions.     The  internal  peace  of  Russia 
was  threatened  by  an  organized  strike  on  a  vast 
scale.     Ireland  seemed  to  be  on  the  brink  of  a 
civil  war,  the  mere  possibility  of  which  was  tearing 
Great  Britain  asunder.     When  Germany  sent  her 
ultimatum  to  Russia,  the  patriotism  of  each  of  the 
three  countries  was  put  to  a  severe  and  sudden 
test.     How  did  it  stand  the  test?     That  Germany 
expected  it  to  fail  can  scarcely  be  doubted.     For 
Germany  believed — it  was  one  of  the  illusions  of 
her   egoism — that   she,    alone  among  the  nations, 
knew   what    patriotism   really   meant.     From   her 
own  point  of  view  she  was  right,  as  she  usually  is. 
In  Germany  patriotism  is  compulsory  rather  than 
spontaneous,  and  is  largely  compounded  of  national 
selfishness,    national    self-satisfaction,    and    ill-will 
towards  the  rest  of  the  world.     In  the  Entente 
countries  the  people  are  not  drilled  and  disciplined 
into  patriotism.     Nor  are  they  taught,   in  school 
and    out    of   school,    to    magnify    themselves    and 
belittle  their  neighbours.     In  the  German  sense  of 
the  word,  then,  they  are  not  patriotic.     But  they 
have  a  spontaneous  patriotism  of  their  own,  which 
may  at  times  burn  low  and  even  seem  to  die  down 
into  cinders  and  ashes,  but  which  is  ready,  on  all 


BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY  189 

great  occasions,  to  break  into  a  blaze.  While  the 
shadow  of  war  was  approaching,  the  fire  of  patriot- 
ism, choked  by  party  strife,  was  burning  low  in 
each  of  the  three  countries.  When  Germany  drew 
her  sword,  it  leaped  up,  unbidden,  in  an  ardent 
flame.  Germany  had  reckoned  that  Russia  would 
either  yield  to  her  peremptory  demand  for  de- 
mobilization, and  so  give  her  a  bloodless  triumph, 
or,  if  she  elected  to  fight,  would  be  paralysed  by 
inward  strife.  She  had  reckoned  that  France,  if 
drawn  into  the  quarrel,  would  come  into  it  a  dis- 
tracted and  disunited  country.  Above  all,  she  had 
reckoned  that  England,  reluctant  to  risk  her 
material  prosperity,  and  demoralized  by  the  menace 
of  civil  war,  would  either  keep  outside  the  arena 
of  battle,  or  not  enter  it  until  it  was  too  late.  All 
these  miscalculations  miscarried.  The  moment 
Germany  laid  her  hand  on  the  sword-hilt,  Russia 
became  a  united  country,  animated  by  a  single 
will.  So  did  France.  The  moment  Germany,  in 
violation  of  a  solemn  treaty,  invaded  Belgium, 
England,  to  her  undisguised  astonishment,  declared 
war  against  her. 

The  entry  of  England  into  the  war  was  a  bitter 
disappointment  to  Germany.  A  heavy  counter- 
weight was  at  once  thrown  into  the  scales.  A 
great  empire,  with  the  strongest  navy  in  the  world 
and  with  vast  financial  and  industrial  resources, 
became  her  enemy.  The  seas  of  the  world,  which 
she  had  intended  to  close  against  France  and 
Russia,  were  closed  against  herself.  Her  great 
navy,  on  which  she  had  spent  untold  sums  of 
money,  was  shut  up  in  its  canals  and  harbours. 
Her  sea-borne  commerce  was  strangled.  It  became 


190         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

possible  for  the  armies  of  France  to  be  reinforced 
and  for  Russia  to  be  equipped  and  financed.  What 
made  the  blow  the  heavier  was  that  it  was  wholly 
unexpected.  Germany  had  reckoned  with  absolute 
confidence  on  England's  neutrality,  and  had  made 
her  plans  accordingly.  She  had  not  even  sent  her 
cruisers  to  haunt  the  great  trade-routes  of  our  com- 
merce and  waylay  our  ships.  In  the  blindness  of 
her  contemptuous  arrogance,  she  had  misread  the 
character  and  miscalculated  the  action  of  a  great 
people,  and  she  had  to  pay  the  penalty  of  her 
errors. 

She  had,  of  course,  foreseen  that  some  day  or 
other  she  would  cross  swords  with  England.  In- 
deed, it  was  her  fixed  intention,  in  the  fulness  of 
time,  to  force  a  quarrel  on  this  country,  which  she 
hated  above  all  other  countries — hated  with  the 
rancorous  hatred  of  envy.  And  she  reckoned  that, 
when  the  day  came,  the  British  Empire,  at  the  first 
blast  of  the  war-trumpet,  would  fall  to  pieces. 
For,  judging  things  according  to  her  wont  by  her 
own  standard,  and  being  unable  to  conceive  of  any 
bond  of  political  union  but  that  of  force,  she  took 
for  granted  that  the  British  Empire  was  forcibly 
held  together;  and  as  the  military  strength  of 
England  was  obviously  "  contemptible,"  she  con- 
cluded that  the  force  which  held  the  empire  together 
was  too  weak  to  stand  the  strain  of  a  great  war. 
But  here  again  her  calculations  miscarried.  Far 
from  falling  to  pieces,  the  empire,  apart  from  a 
weak  rising  in  South  Africa,  which  was  speedily 
suppressed,  rallied,  like  a  single  people,  round  the 
mother  country,  and  made  her  cause  its  own. 
Thus  the  first  result  of  Germany's  invasion  of 


BETRAYED   BY  DOCILITY  191 

Belgium  was  that  she  arrayed  against  herself  the 
strength  and  latent  resources,  not  of  England  only, 
but  of  the  whole  British  Empire. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  war  a  German  newspaper 
called  Der  Tag  cried,  in  unison  with  the  general 
chorus  of  national  exultation  :  "  O  Lord  God,  how 
delightful  are  these  days  !  "  A  few  months  later 
it  wrote  as  follows  :  "  So  many  of  our  calculations 
have  deceived  us.  We  expected  that  British  India 
would  rise  when  the  first  shot  was  fired  in  Europe, 
but  in  reality  thousands  of  Indians  came  to  fight 
with  the  British  against  us.  We  anticipated  that 
the  whole  British  Empire  would  be  torn  to  pieces, 
but  the  colonies  appear  to  be  closer  united  than 
ever  with  the  mother  country.  We  expected  a 
triumphant  rebellion  in  South  Africa,  yet  it  turned 
out  nothing  but  a  failure.  We  expected  trouble 
in  Ireland,  but  instead  she  sent  her  best  soldiers 
against  us.  We  anticipated  that  the  party  of 
'  peace  at  any  price '  would  be  dominant  in  England, 
but  it  melted  away  in  the  ardour  to  fight  against 
Germany.  We  reckoned  that  England  was  de- 
generate and  incapable  of  placing  any  weight  in 
the  scale,  yet  she  seems  to  be  our  principal  enemy. 
The  same  has  been  the  case  with  France  and  Russia. 
We  thought  that  France  was  depraved  and  divided, 
and  we  find  that  they  are  formidable  opponents. 
We  believed  that  the  Russian  people  were  far  too 
discontented  to  fight  for  their  Government,  and 
we  made  our  plans  on  the  supposition  of  a  rapid 
collapse  of  Russia,  but  instead  she  mobilized  her 
millions  quickly  and  well,  and  her  people  are 
full  of  enthusiasm  and  their  power  is  crushing. 
Those  who  led  us  into  all  those  mistakes  and 


192         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

miscalculations  have  laid  upon  themselves  a  heavy 
responsibility." 

A  still  heavier  responsibility,  Der  Tag  might  have 
added,  rests  on  the  people  which,  in  the  blindness 
of  its  docility,  trusted  itself  and  its  destinies,  wholly 
and  unreservedly,  to  the  ruling  caste  which  it  mis- 
called "  the  State,"  and  shirked  the  responsibility 
of  studying  facts,  thinking  out  problems,  and  facing 
possibilities  for  itself. 

I  have  said  that  two  things  came  between  Ger- 
many and  the  early  and  complete  victory  on  which 
she  counted, — the  entry  of  England  into  the  war 
and  the  battle  of  the  Marne.  The  entry  of  England 
into  the  war  was  deliberately,  though,  of  course, 
not  intentionally,  provoked  by  Germany,  who, 
being  fully  convinced  that  the  English  people  were 
too  prosperous,  too  unad venturous,  and,  for  the 
moment,  too  distracted  to  take  up  arms,  did  the 
one  thing  which,  unless  they  were  wedded  to  peace 
at  any  price,  was  certain  to  provoke  them  to  fight. 
That  one  thing  was  to  invade  Belgium.  In  plan- 
ning and  in  carrying  out  this  invasion,  Germany 
made  not  one  miscalculation,  but  three.  She  mis- 
read the  English  character.  She  misread  the  spirit 
of  the  Belgian  people.  And  she  misread  the  temper 
of  all  her  enemies. 

We  have  dealt  with  the  first  of  her  miscalcula- 
tions. Let  us  consider  the  second  and  the  third. 
Germany  misread  the  spirit  of  the  Belgian  people. 
With  France  as  her  objective,  she  demanded  a  free 
passage  for  her  forces  through  Belgian  territory. 
The  weakness  of  Belgium,  as  a  military  Power,  was 
notorious;  and  Germany  felt  so  sure  that  her 


BETRAYED   BY  DOCILITY  193 

demand  would  be  complied  with,  that  she  scarcely 
contemplated  the  possibility  of  a  refusal.  Yet 
Belgium  had  the  temerity  to  offer  armed  resistance 
to  the  invading  legions.  This  action,  which  was 
totally  unexpected,  upset  Germany's  plans.  It  had 
been  her  intention  to  pass  rapidly  through  Belgian 
territory  a  lightly  equipped  and  highly  mobile 
force  in  order  to  impede  the  French  mobilization, 
which  she  knew  would  be  slower  than  her  own, — 
impede  it  so  effectively  that  the  armies  of  France 
would  be  overwhelmed  before  they  were  fully  pre- 
pared to  give  battle.  The  resistance  which  Belgium 
offered  delayed  the  German  advance  for  a  few  days 
only;  but  those  days  were  precious  to  France. 
They  gave  time  for  her  armies  to  be  fully  mobilized, 
and  for  a  small  but  highly  trained  British  force 
to  come  to  her  aid.  As  it  was,  Germany  scored 
heavily  by  her  treacherous  invasion  of  Belgium; 
but  the  advantage  that  she  gained  would  have 
been  trebled  if  Belgium  had  played  the  coward,  as 
Germany,  in  her  profound  ignorance  of  human 
nature,  expected  her  to  do. 

In  the  fury  of  her  disappointment,  the  hand  of 
Germany  fell  heavily  on  Belgium.  Having  over- 
whelmed her  by  force  of  numbers  and  weight  of 
metal,  she  devastated  her  towns  and  villages  and 
massacred  her  people,  hoping  thereby  both  to 
punish  her  puny  adversary  and  to  terrorize  all  her 
enemies.  This  was  the  third,  and  not  the  least,  of 
her  miscalculations.  Having  always  terrorized  her 
own  subjects  into  obedience,  she  took  for  granted 
that  she  could  terrorize  her  enemies  into  submis- 
sion. But,  instead  of  terrorizing  them,  she  hardened 
their  hearts  against  her,  and  aroused  in  them  a 
o 


194        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

spirit  of  righteous  anger  and  stern  resolution  which 
nothing  could  shake  or  abate. 

At  first  the  invading  flood  that  poured  through 
Belgium  swept  everything  before  it.  Then  came 
the  hour  when  the  Franco-British  army  stood  at 
bay  on  the  battlefield  of  the  Marne.  The  history 
of  that  great  and  confused  battle  has  yet  to  be 
written ;  and  it  is,  I  believe,  still  in  dispute  whether 
it  was  on  the  right  wing  or  the  left  wing  or  in  the 
centre  that  the  German  army  first  gave  way.  But 
while  we  are  waiting  for  the  authoritative  history  of 
the  battle, -we  can  give  a  tentative  and  provisional 
answer  to  the  question  that  confronts  us :  Why  did 
Germany  lose  the  battle  which,  with  her  overwhelming 
superiority  in  numbers  and  still  greater  superiority 
in  heavy  artillery  and  machine-guns,  she  had  every 
reason  to  expect  to  win?  She  lost  it  because 
Belgium  unexpectedly  resisted  her  vanguard,  and  so 
gave  France  time  to  complete  the  mobilization  of  her 
forces ;  because  England  unexpectedly  came  into  the 
war  and  sent  an  army  to  Belgium,  which,  though 
small,  played  an  honourable  part  both  in  the  great 
retreat  and  the  great  advance;  because  she  had 
seriously  under -rated  the  fighting  qualities  of  the 
Allies,  thinking,  for  example,  when  she  made  her 
final  effort,  that  the  French  armies  were  demoralized 
and  that  the  British  force  had  ceased  to  count ; 
because  her  barbarities  in  Belgium  and  in  France 
had  strengthened,  instead  of  weakening,  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  enemy,  had  steeled  his  temper  and 
nerved  his  arm.  In  these  matters  Germany  was 
the  victim  of  her  own  miscalculations,  of  her 
fundamental  inability  to  read  other  hearts  and 
other  minds. 


BETRAYED   BY  DOCILITY  195 

But  these  were  not  the  only  causes  of  her  failure. 
In  spite  of  her  miscalculations,  with  all  their  dis- 
astrous consequences,  she  expected  to  win  the 
decisive  battle,  and  she  seemed  to  be  justified  in 
doing  so.  That  she  failed  was  due  to  defects  which 
were  military  even  more  than  national — the  defects 
of  her  military  qualities — the  over-perfection  of 
her  organization,  which  made  her  army  a  machine 
and  paralysed  initiative  by  trying  to  provide 
beforehand  for  every  possible  contingency;  the 
over-perfection  of  her  drill,  which  turned  her 
soldiers  into  automata;  the  over-perfection  of  her 
discipline,  which  crushed  their  spontaneity,  weak- 
ened their  self-reliance,  and  deadened  their  elan. 
The  inability  of  her  infantry  to  attack  in  open 
formation  exposed  her  armies  to  needlessly  heavy 
losses,  and  so  neutralized  the  advantage  of  their 
superior  numbers.  Their  "  mass  courage "  was 
worthy  of  all  praise;  but  their  reluctance  to  charge 
home  with  the  bayonet  often  robbed  them  of  victory 
when  it  seemed  to  be  within  their  grasp.  At 
Le  Cateau,  for  example,  where  they  were  three  to 
one  in  men  and  five  to  one  in  guns,  they  ought 
to  have  enveloped  and  destroyed  the  British  force 
that  faced  them  in  sheer  desperation;  and  had 
they  done  so,  they  might  well  have  "  turned " 
and  crushed  the  left  wing  of  the  Allies.  I  say 
these  things  under  correction;  but  I  am  challenged 
by  facts  which  seem  to  be  inexplicable  on  other 
grounds.  Superior  in  fighting  strength  in  the  ratio 
of  eight  to  five,  incalculably  superior  in  the 
machinery  of  warfare,  convinced  of  its  own  in- 
vincibility, flushed  with  a  series  of  successes  which 
seemed  to  justify  its  proud  self-confidence,  with  a 


196        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

victory  in  sight  which,  if  achieved,  would  be  final, — 
the  flower  of  the  Germany  army  met  in  open  battle 
the  forces  which  it  had  driven  before  it  night  and 
day  for  nearly  a  fortnight,  and  which  had  at  last 
perforce  turned  to  bay,  and,  after  a  week  of  desper- 
ate fighting,  fell  back  before  its  despised  adver- 
saries, baulked  of  the  victory  to  which  there  was 
to  be  no  to-morrow,  out-generalled,  out-manoeuvred, 
and — above  all — outfought.  Faced  by  these  facts, 
the  historian  of  the  future  will,  I  think,  conclude 
that  the  inferior  moral  of  an  over-disciplined  army 
was  the  ultimately  decisive  factor  in  the  defeat 
which  shattered  Germany's  dream  of  worldwide 
empire.  And  I  think  he  will  assign  the  same  cause 
to  her  subsequent  failure  in  Flanders,  when,  less 
ambitious,  but  with  even  greater  odds  in  her 
favour,  she  strove  in  vain  to  break  the  thin,  un- 
fortified line  of  the  Allies  which  stretched  from  the 
Yser  mouth  to  Arras,  blocking  the  roads  to  Dunkirk 
and  Calais,  and  baffling  her  scheme  of  driving  in  a 
wedge  between  England  and  France. 

I  have  not  attempted  to  forecast  the  issue  of  the 
present  struggle.  I  have  contented  myself  with 
trying  to  account  for  one  indisputable  fact, — the 
failure  of  Germany  to  overwhelm  France  in  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  war,  a  failure  which  robbed 
her,  for  good  and  all,  of  the  supreme  prize  for  which 
she  had  unsheathed  her  sword.  And  I  have  sug- 
gested that  the  causes  of  her  failure  were  those 
defects  of  character  which  have  both  expressed 
themselves  in  and  been  intensified  by  the  ultra- 
docility  of  her  people, — the  arrogance,  not  of  her 
rulers  only,  but  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  which 
has  made  her  overrate  her  own  strength  and  resolu- 


BETRAYED   BY   DOCILITY  197 

tion  and  underrate  the  strength  and  resolution  of 
her  enemies;  the  want  of  imaginative  sympathy 
which,  by  sealing  to  her  the  deeper  springs  of  human 
action,  has  led  her  to  make  many  miscalculations 
and  false  moves;  and  the  relatively  low  moral  of 
her  soldiers,  devitalized  and  mechanicalized  by  too 
much  organization,  too  much  discipline,  and  too 
much  drill. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

THE   MENACE   OF    GERMAN    DOCILITY 

IN  the  war  which  is  now  being  waged  twelve  sove- 
reign powers  are  taking  part.  Some  of  these  powers 
have  great  colonial  empires.  The  aggregate  area 
of  the  belligerent  countries  is  nearly  30,000,000 
square  miles,  and  the  aggregate  population  is  not 
less  than  900,000,000  men.  In  other  words,  more 
than  half  the  land  area  and  more  than  half  the 
population  of  the  world  are  involved  in  the  war. 
The  900,000,000  men  belong  to  five  out  of  the  six 
inhabited  continents  and  to  all  the  great  races  of 
mankind — white,  yellow,  red,  brown,  black.  They 
speak  at  least  fifty  languages.  Their  armies  are 
reckoned  by  millions  rather  than  by  thousands. 
Their  navies  comprise  nine-tenths  of  the  fighting 
ships  of  the  world.  They  are  spending  money  at  the 
rate  of  more  than  £100,000,000  a  week.  And  their 
losses  in  killed,  wounded,  missing,  and  disabled  by 
sickness  are  estimated  by  competent  authorities  at 
not  less  than  30,000  men  per  day. 

This  is  a  Titanic  struggle,  by  many  degrees  the 
greatest  that  the  world  has  yet  known.  In  less 
than  a  year  more  money  has  been  spent  and  more 
lives  have  been  lost  than  in  the  whole  of  the 
Napoleonic  wars.  What  is  at  stake?  That  great 
material  interests — greater  than  have  ever  been 
fought  for — are  at  stake  is  indisputable.  But, 

198 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY     199 

great  as  they  are,  I  doubt  if  they  are  of  primary 
importance.  There  are  writers  who  contend  that 
Germany  embarked  on  the  war  with  the  full  in- 
tention of  enriching  herself  by  plundering  the  world. 
It  is  possible  that  she  had  that  end  in  view.  It  is 
possible  that  she  presented  it  to  herself  as  one  of 
the  ends  which  war  was  to  help  her  to  attain.  But 
I  do  not  think  it  was  the  real  object  of  her  heart's 
desire.  The  supreme  end  for  which  she  is  fighting 
is  one  which  she  has  perhaps  only  dimly  realized, 
but  which  is  not  the  less  real  on  that  account. 
She  is  fighting  in  order  to  force  herself  and  her 
ideal  of  life  on  a  reluctant  world.  The  plunder 
of  the  reluctant  world  is  a  matter  of  secondary 
importance.  By  enriching  herself  at  the  expense 
of  other  nations,  by  making  them  tributary  to 
herself  in  commerce  and  finance,  she  will  be  the 
better  able  to  make  them  tributary  to  her  "  Kultur  " 
and  her  "  lust  of  sway."  But  the  tribute  which 
she  wishes  to  exact  from  them  is,  first  and  foremost, 
a  quasi-spiritual  tribute — recognition  of  the  supre- 
macy of  her  ideal  of  life.  And  that  ideal  is  in 
itself  a  demand  for  submission,  a  "  will  to  power." 
It  is  the  ideal  of  dogmatism  lording  it  over  docility, 
of  authority  descending  from  an  autocracy,  through 
a  military  caste  and  a  bureaucracy,  to  the  rank 
and  file  of  the  nation,  and,  through  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  nation,  to  an  ever- widening  circle  of  subject 
peoples,  till  the  whole  human  race  should  at  last 
come  under  its  control.  It  is  the  ideal  of  the  egoist 
who  seeks  to  affirm  himself  by  trampling  on  others, 
of  the  vampire  who  seeks  to  vitalize  himself  by 
exhausting  the  life-blood  of  others.  It  is  an  ideal 
which,  being  anti-human  and  in  open  conflict  with 


200        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

man's  instinct  to  live,  must  be  fought  for  with  fire  and 
sword  and  can  propagate  itself  in  no  other  way.  For 
to  recognize  the  supremacy  of  the  German  ideal  of 
life  is  to  recognize  the  supremacy  of  Germany  herself. 
According  to  Mommsen,  it  was  commercial  jeal- 
ousy that  moved  Rome  to  destroy  Carthage.  But 
I  think  that  the  formula  "  delenda  est  Carthago  " 
had  a  deeper  and  obscurer  origin  than  that.  Com- 
mercial jealousy  counted  for  something,  no  doubt. 
Our  motives  to  action  are  always  subtle  and  complex, 
and  motives  which  we  would  consciously  repudiate 
often  interweave  themselves  with  those  by  which 
we  profess,  and  perhaps  honestly  believe  ourselves, 
to  be  actuated.  I  do  not  know  what  reasons  Cato 
gave  for  advocating  the  destruction  of  Carthage; 
but  I  feel  sure  that  he  and  many  of  his  followers 
were  influenced  by  the  secret  conviction  that  there 
was  not  room  in  the  Mediterranean  world  for  the 
Roman  and  the  Carthaginian  ideals  of  life.  In  like 
manner  I  cannot  but  think  that,  though  Germany 
may  have  been  jealous  of  our  world-empire  and 
commercial  and  financial  prosperity,  and  may  have 
been  "  out  for  plunder,"  as  the  saying  is,  the  root 
of  her  antipathy  to  this  country  is  her  secret  con- 
viction that  there  is  not  room  in  the  world  for 
her  and  our  ideals  of  life.  It  is  certainly  a  significant 
fact  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  war  Germany 
has  singled  out  England  as  her  arch-enemy,  and  has 
poured  out  on  her  a  five-fold  portion  of  the  national 
hatred  with  which  her  "  fangs  o'er  flow."  Why 
has  she  done  this?  Chiefly,  I  think,  because  she 
has  felt,  intuitively  and  subconsciously,  that  the 
English  ideal  of  life  is,  of  inner  necessity,  at  war 
with  her  own.  It  is  true  that  her  ideal  of  life  does 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY    201 

not  admit  of  any  rival,  that  if  it  is  to  have  its  way 
it  must,  as  it  were,  monopolize  the  world.  But  if 
it  cannot  tolerate  a  rival  ideal,  still  less  can  it 
tolerate  one  which  is  an  abiding  protest  itself. 
The  "  delenda  est  Britannia  "  of  the  Pan-German 
Catos  is  the  expression  of  a  deep-seated  feeling  that 
there  is  an  even  deadlier  feud  between  their  country 
and  ours  in  the  world  of  ideas  and  ideals,  than  in 
the  world  of  commerce  and  finance. 

The  German  ideal  of  life  may  be  set  forth  in  the 
homely  words,  "  Do  what  I  tell  you/'  The  nation 
as  a  whole  has  accepted  this  as  its  ideal, — the  few 
who  command  and  also  the  many  who  obey.  "  Do 
what  I  tell  you  "  is  what  the  German  teacher  says 
to  the  pupil,  what  the  German  officer  says  to  the 
soldier,  what  the  German  official  says  to  the  citizen, 
what  the  German  Government  says  to  the  people, 
what  the  German  people  would  like  to  say  to  the 
rest  of  the  world.  To  repeat  the  formula  is  the 
pride  and  joy  of  German  dogmatism,  the  cherished 
dream  of  German  docility.  This  attitude  is  the 
secret  of  Germany's  strength;  for  an  obedient 
people,  swayed  by  a  single  will,  is  in  command  of 
all  the  sources  of  strength  except  those  which  are 
purely  spiritual.  It  is  also  the  secret  of  Germany's 
weakness;  for  the  supreme  sources  of  strength  are 
purely  spiritual,  and  the  path  to  them  is  therefore 
hidden  from  egoism.  And  "  Do  what  I  tell  you  " 
is  the  watchword  of  the  egoist,  the  watchword  of 
him  who  lives  in  order  to  impose  himself  and  his 
ways  and  works  on  his  fellow-men,  who  regards 
divergence  from  his  adopted  path  as  heresy,  and 
resistance  to  his  will  as  crime. 

If  the  German  ideal  is  "Do  what  I  tell  you," 


202        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

the  English  ideal  is  "  Live  and  let  live."     This  is 
a  familiar  and  well-worn  maxim,  but  it  embodies 
a  profound  philosophy  of  life.     We  are  not  a  nation 
of    thinkers.     Theorizing    about    great    matters    is 
not  in  our  line.     I  mean  by  this  that  we  do  not  find 
it  easy  to  work  our  way,  by  the  conscious  exercise 
of  thought,  to  large  conceptions  of  life  and  destiny, 
and  that  we  have  not  much  inclination  to  do  so. 
But  in  our  own  blind,  blundering,  instinctive,  sub- 
conscious way  we  do  sometimes,  under  the  stress 
and   guidance    of   practical    experience,    arrive    at 
truth.     And  when  we  made  "  Live  and  let  live  " 
our  motto,  we  arrived  at  a  great  and  vital  truth. 
How   did   we   feel   our   way   to   it  ?     The   typical 
Englishman  is,    as  we   all  know,  a  man   of  inde- 
pendent  character.     He  rebels    against   dictation, 
resents  interference,  and  claims,  almost  as  a  right, 
to  be  free  to  order  his  own  goings.     How  he  acquired 
these  characteristics  I  will  not  turn  aside  to  inquire. 
That  he  possesses  them  and  that  they  reflect  his 
philosophy  of    life  is,   I   think,   undeniable.     Now 
the  man  of  independent  character  discovers,  sooner 
or  later,  that,  if  he  is  to  retain  his  independence, 
he  must   observe  one  condition  :    he  must  respect 
the  independence  of  others.     He  must  live  and  let 
live.     If  he  will  not  do  this,  if  he  msists  on  being 
intolerant  as  well  as  independent,  he  will  have  to 
fight  unceasingly  for  his  own  hand ;   and  then  there 
will  be  social  chaos.     The  lesson  is  not  easy  to  learn, 
and  it  took  us  some  time  to  learn  it.     Our  Pro- 
testants,  who  rebelled  against  the  dogmatism  of 
Rome,    became   intolerant   dogmatists   when   they 
got   the  upper  hand.     So   did  the   Independents, 
who  rebelled  against  the  despotic  authority  of  the 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN  DOCILITY    203 

Church  of  England.  The  tyranny  of  the  Long 
Parliament  became  more  oppressive  than  that 
of  Charles  I.  We  lost  the  thirteen  American 
colonies  because,  in  defiance  of  one  of  our  cherished 
principles,  we  levied  taxes  on  them  instead  of  waiting 
for  them  to  tax  themselves.  For  many  generations 
we  systematically  coerced  Ireland  instead  of  trying 
to  conciliate  her.  But  we  learned  the  lesson  at 
last ;  and  it  is  now  standing  us  in  good  stead.  For, 
because  we  are  willing  to  let  live  and  do  not  insist 
on  monopolizing  life  for  ourselves,  we  have  entered 
into  alliance  with  the  greatest  of  all  world-powers — 
the  instinct  to  live.  "  I  want  to  live  my  own  life," 
says  each  of  us  in  his  heart  of  hearts,  if  and  so  far 
as  he  is  truly  alive.  "  I  want  to  live  my  own  life," 
says  each  nation  in  its  heart  of  hearts,  if  and  so  far 
as  it  is  truly  alive.  This  desire  may  easily  be 
misinterpreted  by  those  who  feel  it,  and,  when 
misinterpreted,  may  give  rise  to  undue  regard  for 
one's  rights  and  interests  and  disregard  of  the 
rights  and  interests  of  others.  But  when  we  get 
to  the  bottom  of  the  desire  we  find  that  it  is  not 
really  selfish ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  desire 
to  realize  the  ideal  of  "  true  manhood  "  in  one's 
own  way — the  only  way  in  which  the  individual 
man  or  the  individual  nation  can  hope  to  realize 
it ;  that  it  is  the  desire  of  the  individual  to  escape 
from  his  lower  self  by  the  only  path  which  is  open 
to  him,  to  develop  his  higher  self  along  the  only 
lines  which  Nature  has  marked  out  for  him. 

To  say  No  to  this  desire  is  the  self-imposed  mission 
of  Germany.  "  You  shall  not  live  youj  own  life," 
says  the  German  Military  Staff  to  the  individual 
soldier.  "  You  shall  not  live  your  own  life,"  says 


204         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

the  German  State  to  the  individual  citizen.  '  You 
shall  live  the  life  that  I  prescribe  for  you.  You  shall 
surrender  your  individuality.  You  shall  become 
the  creature  of  my  will."  Will  not  Germany  say 
the  same  to  each  individual  people  when,  if  ever, 
she  wields  "  the  sceptre  of  the  Universe  "  ?  We 
need  not  discuss  this  question  on  a  priori  grounds. 
History  has  answered  it.  For  more  than  a  hundred 
years  Prussia,  the  paramount  power  in  Germany, 
has  ruled  the  Poles  of  West  Prussia  and  Posen. 
For  nearly  fifty  years  she  has  ruled  the  Danes  of 
North  Schleswig.  For  more  than  forty  years  she 
has  ruled  de  facto,  if  not  de  jure,  the  people  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine.  In  each  case  she  has  tried  by  coercive 
measures  to  discipline  and  Prussianize  the  subject 
peoples.  In  each  case  she  has  failed  in  her  attempt, 
and  has  earned  the  deep  and  undying  resentment 
of  the  people  whose  desire  for  self-realization  she 
has  thwarted  and  done  her  best  to  suppress. 

To  say  Yes  to  the  desire  for  self-realization, 
whether  in  the  individual  or  in  a  people,  is  the 
mission  of  England.  I  will  not  call  it  a  self-imposed 
mission,  for  England  does  not  readily  impose 
missions  on  herself.  Of  all  nations  she  is  perhaps 
the  least  conscious  and  the  most  instinctive,1  and 

1  "  A  celebrated  Frenchman,"  says  a  reviewer  in  the 
Westminster  Gazette,  "  contrasting  the  English  with  the 
Latin  races,  said  once  to  the  present  writer  :  '  The  super- 
ficial ideas  of  the  English  are  plain  and  common ;  their 
latent  ideas  are  profound  and  subtle/  He  proceeded  to 
illustrate  from  English  law  and  history  .  .  .  from  their 
(the  English  people's)  instinctive  grasp  of  the  paradox,  at 
the  base  of  their  Empire,  that  power  was  gained  by  re- 
jecting dominion  ;  from  their  understanding  of  the  spiritual 
value  of  tolerance,  their  instinctive  perception  of  the  general 
interest  when  it  conflicted  with  the  particular." 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY     205 

in  this,  as  in  other  matters,  she  has  allowed  her 
instincts,  evolving  themselves  in  response  to  the 
pressure  and  stimulus  of  experience,  to  control  her 
policy  and  her  practice.  It  is  to  this  tendency  to 
rely  on  instinct  rather  than  on  theory,  that  England 
owes  her  position  among  the  nations;  for  when 
religious,  moral,  social,  and  political  considerations 
come  into  play,  the  environment  becomes  so  com- 
plex, and  the  forces  at  work  in  it  so  occult  and 
subtle,  that  theory,  with  its  schemes,  systems,  and 
rules,  proves  unequal  to  the  task  that  confronts 
it,  and  only  the  instinctive,  intuitive  side  of  one 
can  deal  with  the  problems  that  present  themselves 
for  solution.  He  who  is  guided  by  his  instincts 
is  always  learning  from  experience ;  for,  even  if  he 
should  consciously  rebel  against  its  teaching,  its 
steady,  relentless  pressure  would  insensibly  influence 
his  inner  life,  so  that  in  following  his  instincts  he 
would,  unknown  to  himself,  have  received  and  laid 
to  heart  the  lessons  which  his  reason,  or  perhaps 
his  prejudice,  had  rejected.  The  theorist,  on  the 
other  hand,  entrenched  behind  his  systems,  is 
proof  against  the  pressure  of  experience;  and  if 
the  facts  and  laws  of  Nature  refuse  to  fit  into  his 
scheme  of  life,  instead  of  modifying  the  latter  to  meet 
their  criticism,  he  tries  "  to  hack  a  way  through  " 
them  for  it,  in  defiance  of  their  silent  protest. 

I  have  said  that  a  profound  philosophy  of  life 
underlies  the  well-worn  maxim  "  Live  and  let 
live."  Tolerance  of  the  ways  and  wishes  of  others 
may  seem  a  small  and  simple  thing ;  but  it  involves 
a  triumph  over  self  which  means  much  and  goes 
far.  For  he  who  has  achieved  that  triumph  has 
entered,  sympathetically  and  imaginatively,  into 


206        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

the  lives  of  others ;  he  has  adopted  a  human  instead 
of  an  individual  standpoint ;  he  has  learnt  to  trust 
Nature  even  when  her  current  flows  in  unfamiliar 
channels;  he  has  realized  that  "  God  fulfils  Himself 
in  many  ways  "  and  that  the  "  blue  sky  bends 
over  all  " ;  and  he  has  done  all  these  things  with- 
out knowing  that  he  was  doing  any  of  them. 
And  the  consequences  of  tolerance  are  as  far- 
reaching  as  its  underlying  principle  is  deep  and  sound. 
It  provides  for  the  diffusion  of  freedom;  and  it  is 
only  in  the  atmosphere  of  freedom  that  the  self- 
development  which  is  of  the  essence  of  life  is  pos- 
sible. While  dogmatism  is  striving  after  a  barren 
uniformity,  tolerance  makes  for  unity  in  diversity, 
and  therefore  for  vital  progress.  It  prepares  the  way 
for  the  outgrowth  of  comradeship,  of  good-fellow- 
ship, of  co-operation,  of  international  law  and 
morality,  of  "  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity,"  of 
peace  and  good-will  among  the  peoples  of  the 
earth.  The  trust  in  Nature  which  is  at  the  heart 
of  it  keeps  us  in  touch  with  the  infinite  and  the 
ideal,  and  throws  open  to  us  all  the  resources  and 
possibilities  of  the  Universe.  And  if  it  cannot 
provide  us  off-hand  with  the  true  criterion  of 
reality  and  the  true  standard  of  value,  it  can  at 
least  tell  us  where  these  are  to  be  found.  Above 
all,  the  tolerance  which  lets  others  live  reacts  on 
him  who  practises  it,  and  at  once  quickens  and 
widens  his  life.  If  we  would  live,  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  word,  we  must  let  live.  Otherwise  our  own 
life  will  be  strangled  in  the  coils  of  an  ever-narrow- 
ing self.  He  who  wantonly  encroaches  on  freedom 
imprisons  himself  behind  the  walls  which  he  has 
built  for  others.  He  who  lets  live  widens  the  scope 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN  DOCILITY    207 

of  his  own  life  by  going  out  by  himself  into  the 
lives  of  others. 

Even  in  the  sphere  of  world-politics  the  ideal 
of  "  Live  and  let  live  "  is  an  inexhaustible  source 
of  strength.  This  could  not  well  be  otherwise,  for 
the  head-springs  of  strength,  as  of  life,  are  spiritual. 
Our  bitter  enemy,  Treitschke,  who  hated  us  for 
many  reasons,  hated  us  first  and  foremost  because 
we  had  a  great  empire,  but  had  not,  as  far  as  he 
could  see,  the  power  to  maintain  it.  By  power 
Treitschke  meant,  I  imagine,  military  power — 
trained  soldiers  and  munitions  of  war.  In  power 
of  that  kind,  we  are,  it  must  be  admitted,  far  inferior 
to  Germany.  But  we  have  power  of  another  kind 
which  Treitschke,  who  looked  at  things  from  the 
standpoint  of  German  militarism,  was  unable  to 
discern.  We  had,  and  have,  an  unfailing  source  of 
power  in  our  homely  ideal  of  "  Live  and  let  live." 

To  this  ideal  we  owe  many  things.  We  owe  to 
it  our  great  Empire,  which  would  have  fallen  to 
pieces  long  ago  if  "Do  what  I  tell  you  "  had  been 
our  motto.  We  owe  to  it  that  when  the  war  broke 
out,  our  Empire  rallied  round  us  as  if  it  were  a  single 
people.  We  owe  to  it  what  is  best  and  most  helpful 
in  our  social  and  political  life, — the  readiness  to 
compromise  which  makes  political  progress  possible, 
the  underlying  tolerance  which  sooner  or  later 
heals  all  quarrels  and  effaces  all  scars,  the  spirit 
of  comradeship  which  can  on  occasion  unite  all 
classes  and  parties  in  bonds  of  brotherhood,  in 
defiance  of  the  caste  feeling  which  is  part  of  our 
inheritance  from  feudalism. 

How  our  ideal  serves  us  in  the  region  of  imperial 
politics,  and  how  difficult  it  is  for  a  German  to 


208         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

appreciate  or  even  understand  it,  the  following 
extract  from  an  interesting  book l  which  has  recently 
appeared  makes  sufficiently  clear.  "  About  five 
years  after  the  end  of  the  Boer  War,"  says  the  writer, 
"  a  German  lady  who  was  dining  at  Court  drew  me 
aside  after  dinner.  '  To-day/  she  said,  '  I  have 
been  talking  to  a  German  gentleman  who  has  been 
living  in  your  Orange  Free  State,  or  whatever  you 
call  it;  and  he  tells  me  that  the  Boers  are  quite 
content  now  to  be  under  your  Government — they 
do  not  want  to  change  back  again.' 

"  '  Are  they?  '  I  said.     '  Is  he  quite  sure?  ' 

'  Oh  quite,  quite  certain.  He  knows.  He  is  a 
German.  They  know  he  is  a  German.  They  tell 
him  the  truth.  He  says  they  are  absolutely  satisfied. 
Now  tell  me  :  how  do  you  manage  it  ?  And  with 
so  few  soldiers,  I  am  told — hardly  any  at  all.  How 
do  you  do  it  ?  In  five  years  !  And  look  at  us  in 
Elsass-Lothringen.  We  don't  know  how  to  satisfy 
them.  They  will  never  be  satisfied.  We  are  always 
in  fear  of  war.  Tell  us  your  secret  . '  She  laid 
her  hand  on  my  arm  and  looked  at  me  intently,  as 
though  she  could  surprise  the  secret  out  of  me. 

"  '  Oh,  I  don't  know/  I  said  lamely.  '  You  see, 
we've  had  a  lot  of  practice  at  governing,  and  made 
an  awful  lot  of  mistakes;  I  suppose  that  is  one 
reason.  So  we  know  what  are  the  kind  of  things 
that  people  won't  stand.  And  we  let  them  a  good 
deal  alone  afterwards,  and  play  cricket  and  foot- 
ball with  them,  and  things  of  that  kind;  and  we 
let  them  vote  the  same  as  the  rest  of  us — and — er 
— well,  we  don't  treat  them  any  different  from  the 
rest,  as  far  as  I  can  make  out — just  let  them  alone 
1  Memoirs  of  the  Kaiser's  Court,  by  Mrs.  Anne  Topham. 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY    209 

to  conspire  or  do  as  they  like — and  then  if  they 
know  that  they  can  they  don't  want  to.  Then  our 
Tommies — our  soldiers — are  very  good  too ;  they're 
not  brought  up  to  be  so  patriotic  as  yours — so,  of 
course,  it's  less  galling  :  they'd  just  as  soon  chum 
up  with  the  enemy  afterwards  as  not.  .  .  .  Well, 
I  don't  know,  I'm  sure.  .  .  .' 

"  '  Cricket  and  football,'  the  lady  murmured, 
'  and  not  too  patriotic,  and  a  vote,  and  let  them 
conspire  if  they  want  to,  and  the  soldiers  are  chummy. 
Ach  !  we  cannot  do  that.  It  is  a  matter  of  national 
temperament,  I  suppose;  but  it  is  sad,  very  sad. 
Here  in  five  years  you  pacify  your  enemy,  and  in 
forty  years  we  have  not  begun  to  pacify  ours  :  it 
is  a  constant  fear — a  constant  terror — one  expects 
every  day  to  hear  that  war  has  broken  out.  And 
you  will  not  tell  us  your  secret.  How  do  you 
learn  to  govern  like  this  ?  No,  it's  impossible  ! 
It  must  be,  as  I  said,  national  temperament  !  ' 

"  She  sighed  and  cast  her  eyes  upward  and  walked 
away  looking  troubled." 

Our  authoress  might  have  explained  things  more 
briefly  by  saying  to  the  German  lady :  "  You 
coerce  :  We  let  live."  In  her  own  way,  however, 
she  told  the  desired  secret;  but  the  German  lady 
could  not  take  it  in.  Even  if  you  could  convince 
a  German  that  by  letting  live  he  would  conciliate 
his  enemies,  whereas  by  coercing  them  he  would 
harden  their  hearts  and  stiffen  their  backs,  you 
would  not  shake  his  faith  in  the  policy  of  coercion. 
The  teaching  of  experience  is  lost  on  the  dogmatist. 
"  Ach,  we  cannot  do  that,"  is  his  answer  to  every 
criticism  and  every  suggestion.  To  admit  that  he 
has  made  a  mistake  is  abhorrent  to  his  nature.  If 
p 


210        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

he  loses  faith  in  himself  he  is  lost  and  helpless ;  for 
the  stars  of  heaven  are  hidden  from  him  by  the 
blindness  of  his  self-esteem,  and  there  is  no  magnetic 
pole  for  his  compass  to  obey  but  that  of  his  own 
self-will. 

What  is  significant  in  the  dialogue  that  I  have 
quoted  is  the  admission  on  the  part  of  a  German 
that  England  knows  how  to  conciliate  the  peoples 
that  she  governs.  The  war  has  already  proved  that 
in  "  letting  live  "  lies  the  secret  which  the  German 
lady  could  neither  guess  nor  understand.  Why 
did  our  Empire,  instead  of  falling  to  pieces  on  the 
outbreak  of  war,  as  Germany  had  expected,  rush 
to  our  aid  with  almost  unanimous  enthusiasm  ? 
Because  we  had  allowed  the  various  peoples  that 
belonged  to  it  to  live  their  own  lives  and  realize 
their  own  ideals ;  because  in  each  case  we  had  gone 
as  far  in  the  direction  of  giving  freedom  as  seemed  to 
be  compatible  with  the  maintenance  of  order.1  Our 
colonies  and  dependencies  might  have  grievances 
of  their  own  against  us;  but  when  it  came  to  a 
choice  between  our  King  and  the  German  Kaiser, 
they  did  not  hesitate  for  a  moment;  they  rallied 
like  one  nation  to  our — and  their — flag. 

In  this  crisis  our  ideal  is  worth  much  to  us.  It 
might  be  possible  to  estimate  its  value  in  terms  of 
millions  of  pounds  and  thousands  of  men.  But 
it  is  through  its  control  of  what  Bismarck  called 

1  These  are  general  statements  to  which  exception  may 
well  be  taken.  In  some  cases,  in  our  desire  to  maintain 
order,  we  have  undoubtedly  miscalculated  the  margin  of 
safety.  But  these  are  errors  of  judgment  which  time  may 
be  trusted  to  correct,  if  it  has  not  already  done  so.  In  any 
case,  our  rule,  even  when  it  is  most  oppressive,  is  humane 
and  sympathetic,  compared  with  that  of  Prussia  over  her 
subject  peoples. 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY    211 

the  imponderabilia  that  it  helps  us  most.  Thanks 
to  it,  all  the  tendencies  of  human  nature  which 
centre  in  the  instinct  to  live  have  ranged  themselves 
on  our  side.  To  this  instinct,  which  animates  and 
sustains  all  our  Allies  and  all  parts  of  our  Empire 
as  well  as  ourselves,  Germany  opposes  the  instinct 
to  dominate,  the  "  will  to  power."  '  The  will  to 
power. ' '  It  was  through  this  formula  that  Nietzsche, 
the  brilliant  but  erratic  poet-thinker,  who  disliked 
the  Prussianized  Germany  of  his  later  years  and 
despised  her  culture,  was  fated  to  become  her  evil 
genius.  As  we  all  know,  however  little  else  we 
may  know  about  him,  Nietzsche  denned  life  as  the 
"  will  to  power."  But  he  omitted  to  define  power. 
What  did  he  mean  by  the  word?  Words  have 
associations,  the  outcome  of  centuries  of  usage, 
which  cling  to  them  and  of  which  they  cannot 
easily  rid  themselves;  and  the  word  power,  in 
Nietzsche's  formula,  when  interpreted  in  the  light 
of  some  of  his  other  sayings,  suggests  to  most 
minds,  as  it  has  certainly  done  to  the  German, 
dominion  over  others.  It  is  true,  as  has  been 
already  suggested,  that  there  is  a  higher  kind  of 
power  which  is  to  be  gained  by  rejecting  dominion, 
by  letting  live.  It  is  true  that  sympathy,  tolerance, 
and  self-effacement  are  mightier  forces,  that  they 
get  their  way  more  readily,  that  they  disarm  op- 
position more  effectively,  than  harshness,  intolerance, 
and  self-assertion.  It  is  true  that  "  love  hath 
readier  will  than  fear."  But  these  ideas  are  foreign 
to  the  German  way  of  thinking,  and  they  do  not 
seem  to  have  risen  above  the  horizon  even  of 
Nietzsche's  imaginative  thought.  For  him  the 
"  will  to  power  "  meant,  for  the  German  nation  it 


212         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

still  means,  the  will  to  dominate  others.  But  the 
exercise  of  dominion  over  others,  when  regarded 
as  an  end  in  itself,  tends,  as  we  have  seen,  to  arrest 
growth  and  in  the  last  resort  to  strangle  life.  Are 
we,  then,  to  define  life  as  the  will  to  strangle  life  ? 
Surely  not :  if  we  are  to  define  life  in  terms  of  will 
and  life,  will  it  not  be  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that 
life  is  the  will  to  ampler  life,  in  other  words  that 
growth  is  of  its  essence?  The  instinct  to  live, 
then,  is  the  instinct  to  grow,  to  live  more  fully  and 
really,  to  expand  and  deepen  life.  To  this  instinct, 
which  is  on  our  side,  Germany  opposes  the  will  to 
dominate  others,  the  will  to  strangle  life. 

This,  then,  is  the  inner  meaning  of  the  Titanic 
struggle  that  is  now  convulsing  the  world.  The 
instinct  to  live  is  confronted  by  the  instinct  to 
dominate,  the  will  to  expand  life  by  the  will  to 
strangle  life.  Sixty  years  ago,  Dr.  Russell,  the 
famous  war-correspondent,  described  the  typical 
Bulgarian  in  the  following  words  :  "  He  is  a  short, 
well-made  and  handsome  man  with  finely  shaped 
features,  and  large  dark  eyes,  but  for  all  that  there 
is  a  dull,  dejected  look  about  him  which  rivets  the 
attention.  There  is  no  speculation  in  the  orbs 
which  gaze  on  you,  half  in  dread  and  half  in  wonder, 
and  if  there  be  a  cavass  or  armed  Turk  with  you 
the  poor  wretch  dare  not  take  his  look  away  for 
a  moment,  lest  he  should  meet  the  ready  lash  or 
provoke  some  arbitrary  act  of  violence.  .  .  .  From 
whatever  race  he  springs  the  Bulgarian  peasant 
hereabouts  is  the  veriest  slave  that  ever  tyranny 
created,  and  as  he  walks  slowly  away  with  downcast 
eyes  and  stooping  head,  by  the  side  of  his  cart,  the 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY     213 

hardest  heart  must  be  touched  with  pity  at  his 
mute  dejection,  and  hate  the  people  and  the  rule 
that  have  ground  him  to  the  dust."  Here  we  see 
"the  "  will  to  power  "  engaged  in  the  congenial  task 
of  strangling  the  life  of  a  people  by  grinding  them 
to  the  dust.  This  state  of  things  lasted  till  1879. 
Then  the  Bulgarians  were  liberated  from  the  Turkish 
yoke.  Thirty-three  years  later  the  Bulgarians  met 
their  former  oppressors  on  the  battlefields  of  Kirk 
Kilisse  and  Lule  Burgas  and  utterly  defeated  them. 
In  the  atmosphere  of  freedom  the  instinct  to  live 
had  reasserted  itself  and  begun  to  undo  the  work 
of  five  centuries  of  oppression. 

If  Germany  could  have  her  way,  she  would  reduce 
us  all  to  the  state  of  lowered  vitality  in  which 
Dr.  Russell  found  the  Bulgarians  in  1854.  It  is  in 
order  to  avert  this  fate  that  we  and  our  Allies  are 
now  fighting.  We  are  fighting  for  the  right  to  live. 
Wherever  there  is  life  there  is  growth ;  and  to  cease 
to  grow  is  to  cease  to  live.  But  if  a  man  is  to  make 
healthy  growth  one  thing  is  essential :  he  must  be 
given  freedom;  he  must  be  allowed  to  do  the 
business  of  growing  for  himself.  For  no  one  else, 
not  even  the  German  Kaiser,  can  do  that  business 
for  him.  It  is  the  same  with  a  nation.  Germany 
wishes  to  conquer  us  in  order  that  she  may  give  us 
the  inestimable  benefit  of  her  "  Kultur."  She  for- 
gets that  when  her  political  power  was  at  its  nadir, 
her  culture1 — in  the  spiritual  sense  of  the  word — 
was  at  its  zenith,  and  that  in  those  days  she  diffused 
culture  by  force  of  radiation,  not  by  force  of  arms. 
The  dream  of  imposing  culture,  in  any  sense  but 

1  The  German  word  for  what  we  call  "  culture  "  is,  I 
believe,  Bildung,  not  Kultur. 


214        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

that  of  material  organization,  on  another  nation 
is  of  all  dreams  the  idlest.  A  nation  must  develop 
itself  in  its  own  way,  or  its  growth  will  be 
stunted,  inharmonious,  misshapen.  The  culture  on 
which  it  was  forcibly  dieted  would  prove  to  be 
poison,  not  food.  But  if  there  is  an  idler  dream 
than  that  of  forcibly  imposing  culture  on  another 
nation,  it  is  that  of  imposing  a  particular  type  of 
culture  on  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  Unity  in 
variety,  not  uniformity,  is  what  Nature  aims  at. 
As  a  distinguished  scientist *•  has  well  said,  "  even 
if  we  were  to  accept  the  German  view  that  German 
'  Kultur  '  leads  to  the  highest  ideal  of  civilization, 
submission  to  it  would  be  ...  a  crime  against 
the  human  race.  We  require  variety,  different 
ideals  among  which  to  choose,  and  freedom  to  make 
our  choice." 

"  For  God  fulfils  Himself  in  many  ways 
Lest  one  good  custom  should  corrupt  the  world." 

We  are  fighting  for  the  right  to  live ;  and  in  doing 
so  we  are  fighting  in  the  most  sacred  of  all  causes. 
To  live,  to  be  really  alive,  is  to  expand  life;  and 
the  expansion  of  life  is  a  process  to  which  there  are 
no  conceivable  limits.  Life,  as  we  men  know  it, 
is  in  its  essence  a  movement  towards  the  ideal, 
the  infinite,  the  universal, — towards  the  ideal  if 
we  think  of  life  as  the  evolution  of  a  type,  towards 
the  infinite  if  we  think  of  it  as  the  pursuit  of  an 
end,  towards  the  universal  if  we  think  of  it  as  that 
which  makes  Nature  "  not  an  aggregate  but  a 
whole."  We  sometimes  ask  ourselves  if  there  is 
any  meaning  in  our  life  on  earth.  The  answer  to 
1  Evolution  and  the  War,  by  Dr.  Chalmers  Mitchell. 


MENACE   OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY    215 

this  question  is  that  life  itself  is  its  own  meaning. 
The  function  of  life  is  to  evolve  and  expand  life, 
to  find  new  depths  in  it,  new  possibilities,  new 
purposes.  We  live  in  order  to  expand  life.  This 
is  the  final  end  of  our  being,  and  as  such  determines 
the  fundamental  distinction — so  far  as  it  is  funda- 
mental— between  good  and  evil.  Life  must  either 
expand  or  contract.  Whatever  makes  for  the 
permanent  expansion  of  life  is  good.  Whatever 
makes  for  the  permanent  contraction  of  life  is  evil. 
The  man  who  so  lives  as  to  foster  his  own  growth 
and  expand  his  own  life,  lives  well.  The  man  who 
so  lives  as  to  arrest  his  own  growth  and  contract 
his  own  life,  lives  ill.  We  call  the  latter  an  egoist. 
Of  egoism  there  are  many  kinds  and  sub-kinds; 
but  there  is  no  form  of  immorality  which  is  not 
ultimately  resolvable  into  some  kind  or  sub-kind 
of  egoism.  The  refusal  to  grow,  the  attempt  to 
find  lasting  satisfaction  within  the  limits  of  a  narrow 
and  ever-narrowing  self,  is  the  sin  of  sins,  the 
fountain-head  of  all  moral  evil. 

If  it  is  a  sin  to  strangle  life  in  oneself,  is  it  less 
of  a  sin  to  strangle  life  in  others  ?  I  need  scarcely 
ask  this  question.  It  is  impossible  to  do  the  one 
without  doing  the  other.  The  man  who  lives,  or 
tries  to  live,  for  himself  alone  is  the  enemy  of  his 
kind.  The  man  who  tries  to  impose  himself  on  others, 
to  aggrandize  himself  at  their  expense,  to  make 
them  the  creatures  of  his  will,  is  a  self-centred 
egoist  who  suffers  at  his  own  hands  a  worse  fate 
than  that  which  he  inflicts.  It  is  in  order  to  exalt 
himself,  to  heighten  his  own  vitality,  that  he  tries 
to  lower  the  vitality  of  those  whom  he  is  in  a  position 
to  dominate.  He.  does  not  know  that  in  the  act 


216         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

of  raising  his  vital  temperature  by  self-seeking 
and  self-assertion,  he  is  lowering  the  whole  plane 
of  his  life.  A  heightened  pulse  is  not  always  a 
proof  of  heightened  vitality.  Sometimes  it  indicates 
a  state  of  fever  which  is  the  prelude  to  a  fatal 
collapse. 

The  forces  that  expand  life  and  the  forces  that 
contract  life  meet  and  struggle  in  the  soul  of  each  of 
us.  They  meet  and  struggle  in  the  soul  of  each 
nation.  They  meet  and  struggle  in  the  soul  of 
Humanity.  Wherever  there  is  growth  there  is  this 
intestine  strife.  And  whatever  ground  has  been 
won,  whether  by  an  individual,  by  a  nation,  or  by 
Humanity,  is  the  outcome  of  a  victory  over  self, 
in  which  the  expansive  forces  have  overcome  the 
resistance  of  the  contractive,  in  which  the  forces 
of  light  have  triumphed  over  the  forces  of  darkness. 

The  war  which  is  now  being  waged,  though  an 
international  war  from  one  point  of  view,  is  a  civil 
war  from  another.  We  and  our  Allies  are  fighting  for 
the  right  to  live  our  own  lives,  first  as  nations  and 
then  as  individuals.  But  in  fighting  for  our  own 
freedom  we  are  also  fighting  for  the  freedom  of  the 
human  spirit,  for  its  right  to  live  its  own  life,  for  its 
right  to  evolve  itself,  to  expand,  to  grow.  Germany, 
in  her  present  mood  of  aggressive  egoism,  is  trying 
to  subordinate  the  well-being  of  Humanity  to  her 
own  material  interests.  She  is  trying  to  expand 
her  territory,  her  wealth,  her  power.  She  is  not 
trying  to  expand  her  soul.  If  she  were,  she  would, 
of  inner  necessity,  have  to  share  her  gains  with  her 
neighbours.  As  it  is,  she  is  trying  to  make  herself 
great  and  rich  and  strong  at  their  expense.  And 
in  order  to  do  this  she  is  trying  to  strangle  their 


MENACE    OF   GERMAN   DOCILITY     217 

freedom,  and  therefore  to  crush  their  souls.  Their 
resistance  to  her  "  will  to  power  "  is  the  resistance, 
in  the  soul  of  Humanity,  of  the  forces  that  expand 
to  the  forces  that  contract,  the  forces  that  make 
for  life  to  the  forces  that  make  for  death. 

Yet  it  is  possible  that  both  sets  of  forces  are 
serving  the  purpose  of  the  living  whole.  Death 
has  its  meaning  as  well  as  life.  Darkness  has  its 
meaning  as  well  as  light.  If  it  is  only  by  over- 
coming resistance  that  the  soul  of  man  progresses, 
the  forces  that  resist  its  progress  must  be  regarded 
as  in  some  sort  the  instruments  of  its  will.  If 
the  forces  that  make  for  the  expansion  of  life  met 
with  no  resistance,  their  too  facile  victory  would 
have  neither  meaning  nor  result.  The  contractive 
tendencies  of  Nature  are  therefore  their  allies  as 
well  as  their  enemies.  The  egoistic  nation,  the 
egoistic  individual  works  the  will  of  universal 
nature  in  the  very  act  of  trying  to  thwart  it.  "  For 
the  universal  nature  converts  and  fixes  in  its  pre- 
destined place  everything  which  stands  in  the  way 
and  opposes  it,  and  makes  such  things  a  part  of 
itself."  1  The  egoist  is  there  in  order  to  resist  the 
expansion  of  life.  That  is  his  function  and  his 
meaning.  It  is  well  that  we,  who  are  fighting  for 
life  and  freedom,  should  be  able  to  take  this  view 
of  our  enemies.  It  is  well  that  we  should  be  able 
to  regard  this  terrible  war  as  in  a  sense  predestined 
and  even  salutary.  We  shall  not  fight  the  less 
strenuously  for  this  momentary  lapse  into  fatalism. 
If  the  forces  that  resist  expansion  are  there  in  order 
to  resist  it,  they  are  also  there  in  order  that  their 
resistance  may  be  overcome. 

1  Marcus  Aurelius. 


CHAPTER   IX 

OUR   DEBT   TO   GERMAN    DOCILITY 

THE  dogmatic  pressure  to  which  Germany,  in 
the  excess  of  her  docility,  so  cheerfully  submits  is 
fatal  to  two  great  qualities — initiative  and  intui- 
tion. In  destroying,  or  at  any  rate  impairing, 
those  qualities,  it  fosters  the  growth  of  others  and 
so  gives  a  definite  bias  to  the  development  of 
German  character.  Debarred  from  the  free  exercise 
of  initiative,  the  Germans  have  sought  and  found 
consolation  in  the  exercise  of  a  patient  industry 
which  enables  them  to  follow  in  the  wake  of  more 
adventurous  spirits,  and  secure  and  consolidate  the 
ground  which  the  latter  have  won.  Their  own 
spirit  of  adventure,  cut  off  for  many  generations 
from  practical  activities,  has  run  riot  in  the  field 
of  theory;  and  as,  owing  to  their  defective  intui- 
tion, they  have  no  sense  of  proportion  or  of  the 
fitness  of  things  to  keep  their  theorizing  in  check, 
they  are  always  ready  to  follow  out  their  theories, 
with  a  fearless  logic,  into  all  their  consequences, 
both  theoretical  and  practical.  These  two  qualities 
—patient  industry  and  fearless  logic — combine  to 
form  what  we  may  regard  as  one  of  the  most 
distinctive  features  of  the  German  character— 
thoroughness. 

It  is  because  of  her  thoroughness,  and  because— 

2X8 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     219 

as  the  defect  of  her  quality — she  has  no  sense  of 
humour,  that  Germany  is,  in  spite  of  herself — in 
spite  of  her  anti-human  sentiment  and  policy — a 
great  benefactor  of  the  human  race.  Having  got 
hold  of  an  idea  or  a  theory  which  happens  to  com- 
mend itself  to  her,  she  proceeds  to  work  it  out  with 
patient  industry  and  fearless  logic, — following  it 
without  hesitation  into  whatever  paradox  or 
absurdity,  or  folly,  or  criminality  it  may  happen 
to  lead  her,  and  shrinking  from  none  of  its  conse- 
quences, however  repugnant  these  may  be  to  right 
reason  or  to  unsophisticated  moral  sense.1  She 
thus  makes  herself  the  victim  of  a  series  of  interest- 
ing experiments  which  enable  other  nations  to 
realize  what  certain  ideas  and  theories  that  have 
gained  or  are  gaining  currency  in  the  world  really 
mean,  what  possibilities  are  latent  in  them,  what 
powers  for  good  or  for  evil  they  have  it  in  them  to 
become. 

One  of  the  theories  which  Germany  is  now  work- 
ing out,  before  our  astonished  eyes,  into  conse- 
quences which  could  never  have  been  foreseen  or 
even  imagined,  is  the  Treitschkean  theory  of  the 
State.  In  this  theory,  the  real  origin  of  which  is 
historical  and  practical,  Germany,  as  we  have  seen, 
has  idealized  her  own  loss  of  political  freedom,  and 
elevated  to  the  rank  of  national  virtues  the  ultra- 

1  "  Our  passion  for  logic,"  says  Prince  Biilow,  "  amounts 
to  fanaticism,  and  whenever  an  intellectual  formula  or 
system  has  been  found  for  anything,  we  insist  with  obstinate 
fearlessness  on  fitting  realities  into  the  system."  Cardinal 
Newman  has  said  that  "  no  one  will  be  a  martyr  to  a  con- 
clusion." This  statement  is  too  sweeping.  In  Germany, 
logic  claims  its  martyrs  by  the  million.  Indeed,  it  may 
almost  be  said  that  in  this  war  the  whole  nation  is  suffering 
(and  inflicting)  martyrdom  for  a  logical  '  conclusion,' " 


220        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

docility  of  her  people  and  the  ultra-dogmatism  which 
is  its  natural  counterpart.  According  to  Treitschke 
and  his  school,  the  State  is  not  the  nation  regarded  as 
an  organic  whole ;  it  is  not  the  brain  of  the  nation ; 
it  is  not  representative  of  the  nation  or  responsible 
to  it ;  it  is  a  source  of  authority  which  has  some- 
how or  other  been  superimposed  on  the  nation,  and 
which  claims  the  devotion  of  the  citizen  because 
it  is  the  State,  and  for  no  other  reason.  Whether 
the  right  to  rule  which  the  State  claims  is  inherent 
in  its  might,  or  whether,  as  the  present  Emperor 
seems  to  hold,  it  is  inherent  in  the  authority  with 
which  he  has  been  invested  by  God,  is  a  question 
with  which  the  average  German  seldom  concerns 
himself.  He  is  content  to  know  that  the  State  is 
there,  in  possession  of  all  power  and  authority,  and 
that  he  owes  it  obedience,  devotion,  service,  life, 
and  whatever  else  it  may  choose  to  require  of 
him. 

The  attitude  of  the  German  citizen  towards  the 
State  must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  love 
of  one's  country  which  is  felt  by  the  citizens  of 
other  lands.  An  Englishman  loves  England  because 
she  is  his  country,  because  he  is  proud  of  her,  be- 
cause he  understands  her  and  she  understands  him, 
because  she  is  the  home  of  all  who  are  dear  to 
him,  because  in  one  way  or  another  she  attracts  his 
love.  A  German  loves  Germany  because  the  State 
has  ordered  him  to  do  so.  A  generation  ago  his 
love  of  Germany  was  a  much  feebler  sentiment  than 
his  love  of  his  own  particular  kingdom  or  duchy  : 
than  the  Bavarian's  love  of  Bavaria,  for  example, 
or  the  Badener's  love  of  Baden.  He  is  now  told  to 
be  a  German  patriot,  and  he  duly  obeys  his  orders. 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     221 

But  devotion  to  the  State  is  the  mainspring  of  his 
patriotism. 

Why  is  he  devoted  to  the  State  ?  Partly  because 
the  State  claims  his  devotion,  and  sends  him  to 
prison  if  he  does  not  give  it  freely.  But  chiefly,  I 
think,  because  the  State  does  so  much  for  him, — 
relieves  him  of  responsibility,  gives  him  security, 
order,  prosperity,  educates  him,  trains  him,  organizes 
the  material  resources  of  the  country  and  places 
these  at  his  service,  fosters  commerce  and  manu- 
facturing industry  and  so  helps  him  to  grow  rich, 
leads  him  to  victory  and  so  enables  him  to  hold  his 
head  high  both  at  home  and  abroad.  In  no  other 
country  does  the  State  do  so  much  for  the  citizen. 
In  no  other  country  does  it  exact  so  much  from  him. 
There  is  a  tacit  bargain  between  him  and  it  which 
so  far  has  been  faithfully  observed  by  both  the 
contracting  parties.  What  would  happen  if  the 
State  failed  to  fulfil  its  side  of  the  bargain, — if  it 
led  the  citizen  to  defeat,  for  example,  or  to  financial 
ruin,  or  to  social  chaos  ?  That  remains  to  be  seen. 
If  the  State  betrayed  him  and  so  forfeited  its  title 
to  his  devotion,  would  his  patriotism,  his  love,  of 
his  country  for  her  own  sake,  survive  the  shock  and 
sustain  him  in  his  trouble?  I  doubt  it.  The 
weakness  of  the  German's  devotion  to  Germany  is 
that  it  has  grown  out  of  the  submission  of  a  docile 
people  to  its  despotic  rulers,1  not  out  of  the  love  of 

1  Patriotism  in  Germany,  as  Bismarck  has  pointed  out, 
is  dynastic  rather  than  national.  In  his  Reflections  and 
Reminiscences  he  says  :  "In  order  that  German  patriot- 
ism should  be  active  and  effective  it  must,  as  a  rule,  hang 
on  the  peg  of  dependence  on  a  dynasty."  For  the  German 
citizen  the  "  State  "  is  incarnate  in  the  ruling  dynasty. 
If  the  State  were  weak  in  government  or  unsuccessful  in 


222         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

a  free  people  for  the  country  whose  history,  with 
its  record  of  heroism  and  suffering,  is  their  own. 

In  Germany,  then,  devotion  to  the  State  takes 
precedence  of  love  of  country.  In  England  the 
order  is  reversed.  In  neither  country  does  patriot- 
ism find  its  other  self  in  service  to  the  State.  The 
average  German  is  the  devoted  servant  of  the 
State,  and  loves  his  country  because  he  is  ordered 
to  do  so.  The  average  Englishman  loves  his  country 
freely  and  spontaneously,  but  is  not  disposed  to 
translate  his  love  of  her  into  service  to  the  State. 
There  was  a  time  when  he  regarded  the  State  as  a 
necessary  evil;  and  there  are  many  Englishmen 
who  still  take  this  view  of  it.  Of  late,  however, 
under  the  sinister  influence  of  our  party  system  of 
government,  which  makes  bidding  for  votes  the 
chief  function  of  the  politician,1  the  English  work- 
ing man  is  learning  to  regard  the  State  as  an  organ- 
ization for  making  him  comfortable  at  the  expense 
of  the  wealthier  sections  of  the  community.  But 
he  has  not  yet  learnt  that  this  obligation  (if  such  it 
be)  on  the  part  of  the  State  to  him  entails  a  corre- 
sponding obligation  on  his  part  to  the  State.  In 
other  words,  he  is  beginning  to  think  that,  though 
he  owes  little  or  nothing  to  the  State,  the  State 

war,  the  dynasty  would  be  discredited,  and  the  patriotism 
of  the  German  people  would  be  put  to  a  test  which  it  might 
possibly  fail  to  stand. 

1  Now,  as  before  the  introduction  of  the  Ballot,  bribery 
plays  a  prominent  part  in  our  political  life.  But  it  is  the 
bribery  of  classes  by  parties,  not  of  individual  voters  by 
individual  candidates.  Which  is  the  more  demoralizing 
procedure  I  will  not  attempt  to  determine.  It  is  possible 
that  bribery  on  a  great  scale  will  some  day  or  other  work 
out  its  own  remedy.  For  the  pre-ballot  box  type  of  bribery 
there  was,  of  course,  no  remedy  but  abolition. 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     223 

owes  many  things  to  him.  He  clamours,  for 
example,  for  the  State  to  nationalize  mines  and 
railways,  so  that,  as  a  voter,  he  may  control  the 
management  of  these  industries  in  his  own  interest ; 
but  he  is  resolutely  opposed  to  the  idea  of  National 
Service.1  Yet  all  the  while  his  patriotism  burns 
with  a  clear  flame;  and  his  occasional  failure  to 
respond  to  the  demands  of  his  country,  even  in  her 
present  hour  of  need,  is  due  to  the  confusion  of 
thought  which  makes  it  possible  for  him  to  keep 
the  ideas  of  Country  and  State  in  separate  com- 
partments of  his  brain,  instead  of  recognizing  that 
the  State  ^s  the  Country,  organized  for  purposes  of 
self-government,  self-development,  and  self-defence. 
In  our  attitude  towards  the  State  we  English 
have  much  to  learn  from  Germany,  where  devotion 
to  the  State,  though  blind  and  carried  to  excess, 
has  made  it  possible  for  the  manhood  of  the  nation 
and  the  resources  of  the  land  to  be  organized  with 
a  degree  of  thoroughness  and  efficiency  which  seems 
to  be  beyond  our  reach.  Where  Germany  is  weak 
is  in  the  quality  of  her  patriotism.  As  the  German 
citizen  is  under  orders  to  love  his  country,  which 
he  presumably  does  not  love  of  his  own  accord,  his 
rulers  and  teachers  must  take  pains  to  convince 
him  that  his  country  is  worthy  of  his  love.  This 
they  can  do  only  by  exalting  her  at  the  expense  of 
other  countries, — in  other  words,  by  giving  his 
patriotism  a  strong  anti-human  bias.  To  give 
such  a  bias  to  the  patriotism  that  he  inculcates  is 


1  Or,  if  he  is  not,  those  who  speak  in  his  name  are. 
What  proportion  of  the  working  men  of  England  are  in 
favour  of  National  Service,  a  referendum  alone  could 
determine. 


224         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

the  duty  of  every  university  professor  and  every 
school  teacher.  "  Since  1890,"  says  Mr.  F.  M. 
Hueffer,  "  professors  .  .  .  whether  in  the  univer- 
sities or  in  primary  and  upper  schools,"  have  been 
"  terrorized  by  every  means  at  the  disposal  of  the 
Prussian  Ministry  of  Education  into  inserting  into 
their  lectures  passages  to  the  effect  that  all  nations 
other  than  the  German  Nation  are  decadent  and 
contemptible."  And  what  the  German  is  taught 
to  believe,  he  does  believe.  The  moral  decadence 
of  France,  the  soulless  Mammon-worship  of  England, 
the  mingled  corruption  and  barbarity  of  Russia 
have  been  so  persistently  dinned  into  his  ears  that 
he  cannot  now  think  otherwise  of  these  nations; 
and  as  he  has  also  been  taught  to  regard  them  as 
the  natural  enemies  of  Germany,  we  cannot  wonder 
that  his  normal  attitude  towards  them  is  one  of 
hatred  tempered  by  contempt. 

Mr.  F.  M.  Hueffer  holds  the  present  Kaiser  re- 
sponsible for  this  state  of  things.  In  justice,  how- 
ever, to  that  much-abused  ruler,  it  must  be  pointed 
out  that  the  anti-human  type  of  patriotism  which 
is  now  rampant  in  Germany  was  not  invented  by 
him.  I  have  already  quoted  the  passage  from 
The  Romantic  School  in  which  Heine,  who  died  in 
1856,  said  that  "  a  German's  patriotism  means 
that  his  heart  contracts,  that  it  shrinks  like  leather 
in  the  cold,  that  he  hates  all  that  is  foreign,  that 
he  is  no  more  a  citizen  of  the  world,  no  more  a 
European,  but  only  a  narrow  German."  The  type 
of  patriotism  which  Heine  deplored  was  a  legacy 
from  German  tribalism,  the  tribesman's  love  of  his 
tribe  being  largely  compounded  of  hatred  of  other 
tribes.  What  William  II  has  done,  in  his  desire  to 


OUR   DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     225 

glorify  his  own  dynasty  and — for  its  sake — the 
land  which  it  dominates,  has  been  to  give  a  great 
impetus,  through  the  medium  of  the  Ministry  of 
Education,  to  the  cult  of  national  antipathy.  In 
doing  so  he  has  fanned  into  flame  a  srr^uldering 
fire;  but  the  fire  was  kindled  thousands  of  years 
ago. 

As  to  his  success  in  fanning  the  fire  into  a  flame 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  In  The  Times  Educational 
Supplement  for  July  a  letter  is  published  from  a 
correspondent  in  Germany  who,  after  describing 
the  Chauvinistic  instruction  that  is  now  being 
given  in  Germany,  goes  on  to  say  that  "  doctrines 
such  as  these,  imposed  on  the  mind  of  youth, 
cannot  fail  to  breed  a  spirit  of  malice  and  hatred 
towards  Germany's  many  enemies  of  to-day  which 
will  not  only  endure,  but  will  hinder  all  plans  of 
permanent  peace.  In  no  country  has  the  Govern- 
ment more  direct  control  over  education  than  in 
Germany.  In  no  country  are  academic  influences 
so  subservient  to  political  programmes.  And  it 
would  appear  to  be  the  distinct  aim  of  the  German 
authorities  to  create  a  spirit  of  blind,  uncompro- 
mising Chauvinism  in  the  heart  of  the  coming 
generation."  Another  newspaper  correspondent, 
who  had  been  an  assistant  master  in  a  higher 
technical  school  in  the  Rhine  provinces,  tells  how 
war  was  systematically  glorified  and  hatred  of 
France  instilled  into  the  minds  of  the  boys  by 
the  teachers.  "  Our  school,"  he  says,  "  was  richly 
bedecked  with  pictures  of  Bismarck  and  of  scenes 
from  the  Franco-German  War.  On  the  top  floor, 
along  the  corridor  were  frescoes  illustrative  of 
certain  lines  in  the  poet  Korner's  Aufruf.  The 
Q 


226         THE   NEMESIS    OF   DOCILITY 

lines  '  Thou  shalt  drive  the  steel  into  the  foeman's 
heart '  were  illustrated  by  a  bloody  picture  of 
French  soldiers  being  skewered  on  Prussian  swords. 
An  elder  boy  had  written  a  playlet  in  which  one 
of  the  characters  was  a  French  officer.  The  action 
dealt  with  how  the  man  was  discovered  in  the  act 
of  treachery,  and  how  he  was  slain  in  a  duel  with  a 
German  student.  ...  A  batch  of  elder  pupils  went 
on  a  walking  tour  through  Luxemburg  and  along 
the  Vosges.  The  master  in  charge  of  them  told 
me  how  the  lads  had  amused  themselves  on  the 
frontier  by  standing  in  Germany  and  seeing  how 
far  they  could  spit  into  France." 

Ten  years  ago  an  English  resident  in  Germany 
sent  the  following  letter  to  one  of  our  newspapers  : 
"  I  beg  to  enclose  a  little  book,  given  away  at  one 
of  the  best  shops  in  Stettin  to  the  children  of  pur- 
chasers (my  little  boy  received  one),  in  which  you 
will  see  that  it  tells  the  story  of  two  English  Red 
Cross  soldiers  who  rob  the  wounded  and  boast  of 
the  money  and  jewellery  they  got,  and  who,  after 
a  time,  murder  a  soldier,  a  German,  to  steal  his 
money,  etc.  By  means  of  such  lies  the  feeling  of 
hatred  for  the  English  is  kept  up." 

These  are  the  straws  which  show  which  way  the 
current  is  flowing.  Still  more  significant  is  the 
fact  that  quite  recently  the  Bavarian  Minister  of 
Education  found  it  necessary  to  issue  a  circular 
discountenancing  the  cult  of  hatred  which  was 
going  on  in  the  schools  of  all  grades,  and  that  Herr 
Dessauer  thought  it  well  to  express  regret  at  the 
inclusion  in  school  anthologies  of  his  notorious 
Hymn  of  Hate.  Things  must  have  gone  far  for 
such  steps  to  be  taken.  When  those  who  are 


OUR   DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     227 

responsible  for  a  movement  have  to  call  a  halt  to 
it,  the  inference  is  plain  that  their  policy  has  been 
successful  beyond  their  expectation.  Perhaps  the 
Bavarian  Minister  and  Herr  Dessauer  reminded 
themselves,  too  late,  that  "  national  hatred,"  as 
Goethe  remarked  to  Eckermann,  is  "  most  intense 
among  the  lowest  in  the  scale  of  civilization." 

Such  is  patriotism,  as  the  word  is  understood  in 
Germany.  A  State-enforced  virtue,  untouched  by 
any  sentiment  of  humanity,  compounded  in  equal 
degrees  of  national  self-assertion  and  national 
hatred,  the  very  apotheosis  of  collective  selfishness, 
it  can  scarcely  fail  to  harden  the  hearts  and  narrow 
the  minds  of  those  whom  it  inspires.  For  the  time 
being — thanks  to  the  extraordinary  capacity  of  the 
German  people  for  feeling  what  they  are  told  to 
feel — the  patriotic  ardour  of  the  nation  knows  no 
limits.  But  when  one  looks  back  a  hundred  years, 
and  remembers  that  then  the  Germans  prided 
themselves  on  their  lack  of  patriotism  and  cared 
more  for  their  respective  states,  however  petty, 
than  for  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  when  one  looks 
forward  into  an  uncertain  future,  one  begins  to 
wonder  how  long  this  enthusiasm  will  last,  and 
whether  it  will  burn  as  brightly  in  the  hour  of  ad- 
versity as  now  in  the  hour  of  success.  Meanwhile, 
we  must  thank  Germany  for  having  taught  us  that 
patriotism  which  is  nothing  more  than  patriotism 
must  sooner  or  later  become  something  less;  that, 
since  love  is  an  expansive  force  which  no  limits, 
not  even  those  of  one's  country,  can  permanently 
content,  the  ultimate  destiny  of  love  of  country  is 
either  to  expand  into  all-embracing  sympathy  or 
contract  into  all-embracing  hate. 


228         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

Having  learnt  their  lesson  with  characteristic 
docility,  having  learnt  to  exalt  themselves  and  to 
hate  and  despise  their  neighbours,  the  Germans  are 
now  following  out  this  teaching,  with  characteristic 
thoroughness,  into  all  its  consequences.  The  first 
of  these  consequences  is  war.  In  Germany  mili- 
tarism is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  other  self  of  patriot- 
ism, the  glorification  of  war  and  the  inculcation  of 
the  military  spirit  being  among  the  foremost  duties 
of  the  patriotic  orator  and  the  patriotic  teacher. 
The  patriotism  which  resolves  itself  into  contempt 
and  hatred  of  other  countries  will  have  as  its  prac- 
tical aim  the  exalting  of  one's  own  country  at  the 
expense  of  its  neighbours.  How  is  this  to  be  done  ? 
By  war,  which  will  give  it  the  power  that  is  based 
on  dominion;  and  by  industrial  and  commercial 
activity,  which  will  give  it  the  power  that  is  based 
on  wealth.  In  and  through  this  twofold  aim  the 
German  State  has  consolidated  its  alliance  with  the 
German  people.  Like  the  Tempter  in  the  Gospel 
story,  the  State  has  shown  the  people  "  the  king- 
doms of  the  world  and  the  glory  of  them,"  and  has 
said  to  the  people,  "  All  these  things  will  I  give 
thee  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me."  And 
the  people  has  listened  to  the  voice  of  the  Tempter, 
and  has  gone  forth  under  the  aegis  of  the  State  to 
conquer  the  kingdoms  of  the  world. 

Of  the  spirit  in  which  Germany  is  waging  this 
war  I  have  already  spoken.  In  the  Middle  Ages  the 
horrors  of  war  were  mitigated  in  some  degree  by 
the  spirit  of  chivalry.  In  modern  times  a  serious 
attempt  has  been  made  to  regulate  the  conduct  of 
war  by  various  international  conventions  which  have 
as  their  object  to  lessen  the  suffering  which  war 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     229 

inflicts  on  the  armies  in  the  field,  on  the  inhabitants 
of  invaded  districts,  and  on  neutral  countries.  In 
the  Middle  Ages  Germany  was  but  little  influenced 
by  the  spirit  of  chivalry ;  and  in  the  present  war  she 
has  violated  nearly  all  the  conventions  which  she 
had  undertaken  to  observe.  She  has  done  this  so 
systematically  that  one  must  suppose  that  she  sent 
her  representatives  to  the  Hague  with  the  full 
intention  of  breaking  whatever  rules  might  be 
formulated,  should  the  "  necessity  of  war  "  dictate 
such  a  course  of  action,  and  in  the  hope  that  other 
Powers  would  be  placed  at  a  disadvantage  by  being 
more  scrupulous  than  herself.  If  she  has  outraged 
public  opinion  in  neutral  as  well  as  in  hostile  coun- 
tries, she  has  no  doubt  counted  the  cost  of  her 
conduct.  "  To  win  anyhow  "  is  the  end  which  she 
set  herself;  and  if  she  could  but  emerge  victorious 
from  this  world-convulsing  struggle,  she  would  be 
able  to  impose  her  own  egoistic  morality  on  the 
world  at  large.  Whatever  was  expedient  from  the 
point  of  view  of  German  interests  was  morally 
right,  so  far  as  she  was  concerned;  and  if  her 
treachery  and  inhumanity  could  enable  her  to 
achieve  victory,  a  sponge  would  be  passed  over 
the  debit  side  of  her  account,  for,  in  the  eyes  of  her 
conquered  enemies  and  of  the  neutrals  who  were 
beginning  to  feel  that  their  turn  would  come  next, 
her  conduct  would  at  least  have  acquired  the  right 
that  is  inherent  in  might. 

It  is  not  only  the  self-centred  patriotism  of  Ger- 
many which  has  made  her  so  inhuman  a  fighter. 
Her  thoroughness  and  her  logic  must  also  be  held 
responsible  for  her  attitude.  What  is  thoroughness 
in  one  sphere  of  action  is  ruthlessness  in  another. 


230        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

And  there  is  something  to  be  said  for  the  logic 
which  refuses  to  draw  a  hard  and  fast  line  between 
explosive  and  asphyxiating  shells,  or  between  the 
ruses  which  the  Hague  Convention  has  sanctioned 
and  those  which  it  has  disallowed.  Is  not  the 
object  of  war  to  secure  victory  by  the  infliction  of 
suffering?  And  if  so,  why  imperil  victory  by 
shrinking  from  the  infliction  of  suffering?  And,  if 
Science  has  placed  various  means  of  destruction  at 
man's  service,  why  should  he  make  use  of  some  of 
these  and  refuse  to  make  use  of  others  ? 

It  is  easy  to  ask  such  questions  as  these;  and  it 
is  by  no  means  easy  to  answer  them.  During  one 
of  our  Maori  wars  in  New  Zealand  a  troopship 
went  ashore  at  dusk  on  a  sandbank  in  the  mouth 
of  a  river,  and  could  not  be  got  off  till  the  next 
morning.  The  Maoris  knew  that  it  was  there,  but 
made  no  attempt  to  attack  it,  for,  as  they  subse- 
quently explained,  they  thought  it  would  not  be 
"  playing  the  game  "  to  do  so.  These  simple  people 
must  have  argued  unconsciously  that  in  war  certain 
qualities,  such  as  courage,  endurance,  discipline, 
self-sacrifice,  loyalty,  physical  and  mental  sanity 
are  on  trial,  and  that  therefore  they  had  no  right 
to  turn  to  their  own  account  an  accident  which 
gave  them  a  quasi-mechanical  advantage  over 
their  enemies.  Such  a  conception  of  the  meaning 
and  value  of  war  is  wholly  foreign  to  the  German 
temperament.  "  When  nations  are  at  war,  the 
stakes  are  so  high  that  no  consideration  of  fair 
play,  of  sportsmanship,  of  chivalry,  of  honour,  or 
even  of  humanity,  ought  to  be  allowed  to  bind  the 
belligerents.  If  our  enemies  think  differently,  so 
much  the  worse  for  them.  They  may  fetter  their 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     231 

own  action  if  they  please,  but  they  shall  not  fetter 
ours.  And  what  is  more,  we  shall  judge  them  by 
their  own  standard,  and  make  a  violent  outcry  if 
they  do  any  of  the  things  which  they  reproach  us 
for  having  done."  So  the  German  War-lords  seem 
to  have  argued ;  and  if  we  were  to  ask  them  where, 
if  anywhere,  the  relapse  of  civilization  into  bar- 
barism, which  their  theory  of  war  must  bring  about, 
was  to  be  arrested,  they  would  answer  that  it  was 
impossible  to  draw  a  hard  and  fast  line,  that  each 
case  must  be  judged  on  its  merits,  that  moral  con- 
siderations had  ceased  to  apply,  and  that  no  arbiter 
of  right  and  wrong  could  be  recognized  except  the 
"  necessity  of  war." 

We  ought  to  thank  Germany  for  the  ruthlessness 
with  which  she  is  fighting.  She  has  made  us  realize, 
if  we  had  never  done  so  before,  what  war  means 
and  what  it  ultimately  involves.  Having  taught 
us  that  patriotism,  when  divorced  from  love  of 
Humanity,  degenerates  into  national  ego-mania  of 
a  peculiarly  malignant  type,  she  is  now  teaching  us 
that  war  is,  in  the  last  resort,  a  brutal,  barbarous, 
and  insane  method  of  settling  international  dis- 
putes. For  centuries  we  have  been  trying  in 
various  ways  to  mitigate  the  horrors  of  war.  Ger- 
many has  opened  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  real 
horror  of  war  is  war  itself.  For  war  is  an  attempt 
to  settle  disputes  by  an  appeal  to  force  instead  of 
to  justice ;  and  in  the  present  stage  of  our  social 
development  the  appeal  to  force,  whatever  form  it 
may  take,  is  in  itself  so  profoundly  immoral,1  so 

1  If  there  is  any  valid  argument  in  favour  of  the  appeal 
to  force,  it  is  provided  by  what  I  may  call  the  Maori  theory 
of  war — the  theory  which  sees  in  war  the  test,  and  in  the 


232        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

gross  an  outrage  on  truth  and  right,  that  our 
attempts  to  refine  and  humanize  it  are  as  futile 
as  would  be  the  attempt  of  a  legislator  to  secure 
humanity  in  the  commission  of  murder  or  decency 
in  the  commission  of  rape.  By  taking  war  quite 
seriously,  by  going  into  it  with  the  full  intention 
of  winning  at  whatever  cost  and  by  whatever 
means,  Germany  has  torn  asunder  the  flimsy  veil 
of  respectability  with  which  our  conventions  had 
invested  it,  and  has  shown  us  in  all  its  naked 
hideousness  the  murderous  madness  which  we  had 
tried  to  regulate  and  control. 

We  ought  to  thank  Germany  for  having  done 
this,  but  we  ought  also  to  execrate  her.  "  It  must 
needs  be  that  offences  come,  but  woe  to  that  man 
by  whom  the  offence  cometh."  The  nation  which 

preparation  for  war  the  means  of  training,  certain  manly 
virtues  with  which  human  nature  can  never  dispense. 
There  was  a  time  when  this  theory  may  have  held  good ; 
but  since  the  invention  of  gunpowder  the  part  that  human 
worth — to  use  a  comprehensive  term — plays  in  war  has 
gradually  decreased  in  importance ;  and  to-day,  though 
human  worth  counts  for  much,  it  counts  for  less,  as  com- 
pared with  money  and  mechanical  ingenuity,  than  it  has 
ever  done  since  war  began.  The  Austro-German  armies 
which  drove  the  Russians  out  of  Galicia  and  Poland  were 
in  no  way  superior  to  their  opponents  in  courage,  endur- 
ance, and  discipline,  or  even  in  strategic  and  tactical  skill ; 
but  they  were  immensely  superior  to  them  in  heavy  artillery 
and  other  munitions  of  war.  And  as  Germany  intends  to 
use  whatever  means  of  destruction  Science  may  place  at 
her  service,  and  as  in  self-defence  other  nations  will  have 
to  follow  her  example,  one  may  safely  prophesy  that,  as 
time  goes  on,  the  respective  values  of  human  worth  and 
machinery  will  change  with  ever-increasing  rapidity  in 
favour  of  the  latter.  That  is  another  reason  why  we 
should  begin  to  dream  of  the  abolition  of  war.  When 
Mr.  H.  G.  Wells'  "  atomic  bombs  "  have  been  invented, 
even  the  Bernhardis  of  that  period  will  eulogize  war  in 
vain. 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     233 

resists  and  sets  at  defiance  a  general  movement  in 
the  direction  of  mercy  and  humanity  is  a  traitor 
to  the  cause  of  human  progress.  If  Germany  has 
rendered  a  service  to  that  cause,  she  has  done  so 
unwittingly  and  in  her  own  despite.  It  is  not  in 
order  to  disillusionize  the  world  of  militarism  that 
Germany  has  waged  war  with  studied  inhumanity 
(the  glorification  of  militarism  is  a  vital  part  of  her 
own  system  of  education),  but  in  order  to  shorten 
the  road  to  the  victory  for  which  she  is  striving, 
and  to  the  world-dominion  by  which  victory  is  to 
be  rewarded.  In  her  conduct  of  the  war,  as  in  her 
preparation  for  and  inception  of  it,  she  has  been 
purely  and  frankly  selfish;  and  she  would  have 
thought  it  grossly  immoral  to  be  anything  else. 
And  if  there  is  something  to  be  said  for  the  logic 
which  refuses  to  draw  a  line  between  explosive  and 
asphyxiating  shells,  there  is  surely  nothing  to  be 
said  for  the  logic — if  logic  it  be — which,  on  the  plea 
of  military  necessity,  tries  to  justify  such  atrocities 
as  the  wholesale  slaughter  of  unarmed  civilians,  the 
wholesale  burning  and  plundering  of  defenceless 
towns  and  villages,  the  employment  of  women  and 
children  as  screens  for  advancing  troops,  the  sink- 
ing of  unarmed  ships  without  warning,  the  torturing 
of  prisoners  in  order  to  extract  information. 

The  truth  is,  that  in  her  mode  of  waging  war,  as 
in  her  general  policy  and  her  attitude  towards 
other  countries,  Germany  has  relapsed  into  tribal- 
ism, a  stage  in  human  development  which  the 
world  is  supposed  to  have  outgrown,  and  in  out- 
growing which  it  is  supposed  to  have  attained  to 
civilization.  The  essence  of  tribalism  is  organized 
selfishness.  Having  evolved  a  kind  of  collective 


234        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

consciousness,  the  tribe  sacrifices  to  itself  without 
compunction  the  interests  of  the  individual,  whose 
individuality  it  mercilessly  crushes,  and  the  interests 
of  Humanity,  the  idea  of  which  has  not  yet  dawned 
on  its  thought.  Loyalty  within  the  tribe — intense, 
unswerving,  self-sacrificing  loyalty — is  balanced  by 
hatred  of  other  tribes;  and  the  one  feeling  is  as 
strong  as  the  other.  Speaking  of  the  political 
parties  into  which  the  German  nation  is  divided, 
and  of  their  internecine  quarrels,  Prince  Biilow, 
who  recognizes  that  his  country  has  never  fully 
emerged  from  the  tribal  stage  of  development, 
says  that  "  immutable  loyalty  within  the  party  is 
the  cause  of  their  quarrelsomeness.  Just  because 
the  German  party  man  clings  so  steadfastly  and 
even  lovingly  to  his  party,  he  is  capable  of  such 
intense  hatred  of  other  parties  and  has  such  difficulty 
in  forgetting  insults  and  defeats  suffered  at  their 
hands.  Here  ...  in  modern  guise  we  have  the 
old  German  character."  How  terrible  a  thing  is 
tribal  hatred  the  history  of  tribal  warfare  all  the 
world  over  fully  proves.  Combining  in  itself  the 
individuality  which  properly  belonged  to  each  of 
its  members  and  the  social  finality  which  properly 
belongs  to  the  human  race,  the  tribe  acquired  a 
collective  personality  of  its  own,  which  led  it  to 
invest  with  a  similar  personality  the  tribe  with 
which  it  quarrelled,  and  in  the  violence  of  its  hatred 
to  regard  that  tribe  as  a  personal  enemy  whose 
utter  destruction — the  destruction  of  all  who  be- 
longed to  it — men,  women  and  children — was  no 
crime  against  humanity,  but  a  lawful  and  even 
meritorious  deed.  It  was  in  this  spirit  that  Ger- 
many waged  war  in  ancient  days  and  in  the  Middle 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     235 

Ages;  and  if  in  the  days  of  professional  armies  the 
spirit  of  tribal  hatred  receded  into  the  background, 
the  nationalizing  of  the  armed  forces  of  the  empire, 
combined  with  the  systematic  cult  by  the  State 
of  militarism  and  aggressive  patriotism,  has  again 
brought  it  to  the  front.  That  Germany  is  still 
tribal  at  heart  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  only  by 
cultivating  patriotism  of  the  tribal  type,  with  the 
"  immutable  loyalty  "  and  "  intense  hatred  "  which 
it  involves — by  cultivating  it  in  season  and  out  of 
season,  through  the  medium  of  the  Universities, 
the  schools,  the  Press,  and  all  the  other  agencies 
which  the  State  controls — has  the  State  been  able 
to  make  of  Germany,  so  long  divided  and  dis- 
tracted, a  single  united  nation, — whether  perma- 
nently or  only  temporarily  united  remains  to  be 
seen. 

It  is  the  revival  of  the  tribal  spirit — a  revival  on 
a  scale  so  vast  that  the  tribesmen  are  now  numbered 
by  millions  instead  of  thousands — that  is  ultimately 
accountable  for  the  aggressive  egoism  with  which 
Germany  confronts  all  other  countries,  and  for  the 
deliberate  inhumanity  with  which  she  is  waging 
this  war.  The  inhumanity  of  her  warfare  is  the 
natural  outcome  of  the  inhumanity  of  her  self- 
centred  patriotism.  Let  us  thank  her  for  having 
worked  out,  with  all  her  thoroughness  and  all  the 
fanaticism  of  her  logic,  the  one  inhumanity,  which 
so  readily  counterfeits  a  virtue,  into  the  other, 
which  is  so  palpably  a  crime. 

From  war  to  commerce,  in  the  eyes  of  the  modern 
German,  the  transition  is  easy  and  direct.  For  he 
regards  commerce  as  a  species  of  warfare;  and  he 


236        THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

holds  that  self-aggrandizement  is  the  final  end  of 
war  as  well  as  of  commerce,  and  of  commerce  as 
well  as  of  war.  It  is  indeed  said  by  men  who  speak 
with  authority  that  this  war,  as  waged  by  Germany, 
is  one  of  plunder  not  less  than  of  conquest.  It  is 
said  that  Germany  went  into  it  in  order  to  extend 
her  commerce  by  securing  new  sources  of  raw 
material  and  gaining  full  control  of  important 
markets  for  her  goods,  and  in  order  to  enrich 
herself — and  so  further  extend  her  commerce — by 
exacting  heavy  indemnities  from  her  conquered 
enemies.  It  is  even  said  that  she  plunged  into  the 
war  in  the  spirit  of  a  gambler,  hoping,  if  successful, 
to  restore  her  financial  position,  which  had  become 
disorganized  by  over-speculation,  by  her  too  great 
eagerness  to  get  rich.  For  my  own  part,  I  incline 
to  believe  that  she  is  fighting  for  ascendancy  even 
more  than  for  plunder,  for  ideal  (if  one  may  use 
the  word)  even  more  than  for  material  ends.  But 
that  she  is  also  fighting  for  the  latter  can  scarcely 
be  doubted.  And  perhaps  she  might  plead  that, 
things  being  what  they  are,  she  cannot  help  doing 
so.  For  the  modern  capitalist  is  the  lineal  descen- 
dant of  the  mediaeval  baron ;  and  a  war  of  aggression 
is  of  inner  necessity  a  war  of  commercial  as  well  as 
of  territorial  aggrandizement. 

In  any  case  Germany  is  waging,  and  has  long 
been  waging,  a  war  of  commercial  rivalry  and 
aggression.  For  this  to  become  possible  she  had 
to  change  her  whole  outlook  on  life.  A  hundred 
years  ago  Wordsworth's  ideal  of  "  plain  living  and 
high  thinking  "  was  more  fully  realized  in  Germany 
than  in  any  other  country.  Since  then  she  has 
passed  to  the  opposite  extreme.  In  those  days 


OUR   DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     237 

she  thought  in  terms  of  mind  and  will,  of  duty  and 
destiny,  of  the  ego  and  the  cosmos.  To-day,  if  she 
is  not  thinking  in  terms  of  guns  and  battleships, 
she  is  thinking  in  terms  of  marks  and  pfennigs,  of 
bills  of  lading  and  bills  of  exchange,  of  synthetic 
indigo  and  aniline  dyes;  and,  absorbed  as  she  is  in 
the  speculative  ventures  of  her  manufacturers  and 
merchants,  she  laughs  to  scorn  the  speculative 
ventures  of  her  old-world  thinkers,  who  from  their 
garret  windows  looked  out  at  the  stars.  In  those 
days  she  lived  very  plainly,  for  she  was  exceeding 
poor;  but  she  found  happiness  in  her  penury. 
To-day  she  lives  as  luxuriously  as  her  means  permit 
—and  they  permit  of  much  luxury — but  she  finds 
bitterness l  rather  than  happiness  in  her  luxury 
and  her  wealth. 

There  was  a  time,  not  so  very  remote,  when 
Germany  poured  scorn  on  us  English  for  our 
Mammon-worship.  After  the  war  of  1870,  when 
the  gold  of  the  French  ransom  began  to  circulate 
in  her  veins,  she  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
Mammon  was  worthy  of  her  worship;  and  as  she 
does  nothing  by  halves,  she  has  now  become  the 
most  devoted  and  wholehearted  of  his  votaries. 

In  the  development  of  her  industrial  and  com- 
mercial activities,  the  State  and  the  people  have 
worked  side  by  side.  In  order  to  distract  the 
minds  of  the  people  from  domestic  politics  the  State 

1  "  I  cannot  sufficiently  emphasize,"  says  Mr.  Hueffer, 
"  to  what  an  extent  bitterness  is  the  note  of  modern  German 
life — of  that  modern  German  life  whose  only  discoverable 
arts  of  importance  are  the  bitter,  vigorous  and  obscene 
drawings  of  Simplicissimus,  the  bitter  and  terrifying  lyrics 
of  the  most  modern  German  poets,  and  the  incredibly 
filthy — the  absolutely  incredibly  filthy — productions  of  the 
German  variety  stage." 


238         THE   NEMESIS    OF   DOCILITY 

has  encouraged  them  to  throw  their  energies  into 
the  pursuit  of  wealth.  And  as  they  are  warned  off 
by  the  State  from  all  the  "  great  matters  "  which 
have  any  bearing,  however  remote  or  indirect,  on 
political  problems,  they  have  given  to  industrialism 
the  zeal,  the  devotion,  the  brain-power,  the  mental 
application,  and  even — according  to  Mr.  Hueffer — 
the  idealism  which  in  a  freer  country  they  might 
have  given  to  nobler  ambitions  and  loftier  spheres 
of  work.  But  it  is  not  only  in  order  to  divert 
the  people  from  dreams  of  political  reform,  that 
the  State  has  gone  out  of  its  way  to  encourage  the 
worship  of  Mammon.  The  State  needs  money  for 
the  realization  of  its  own  ambitions,  for  its  monster 
armies  and  its  rapidly  expanding  fleets.  "  Make 
me  rich,"  it  says  to  the  people,  "  and  I  will  do  my 
best  to  make  you  rich."  The  bargain  is  a  fair  one, 
and  it  has  been  faithfully  observed  by  both  parties. 
In  no  other  country  has  the  State  done  so  much 
for  the  development  of  trade.  "  The  rapid  success 
of  the  Germans "  (in  trade),  says  Sir  William 
Ramsay,  "  has  been  due  in  part  to  excellent  organiza- 
tion— their  '  Kultur  ' — and  in  part  to  the  important 
fact  that  their  individual  efforts  have  been  officially 
subsidized.  Their  commerce,  like  their  army,  has 
been  supported  by  the  State.  Thus  the  plan  has 
been  to  attack,  in  a  methodical  manner,  some 
industry  carried  on  outside  of  Germany.  Heavy 
import  duties  are  imposed  on  the  article  which 
they  desire  to  manufacture;  bounties  are  given  on 
exports  of  the  article;  freights  are  reduced  on  its 
carriage;  and  the  ships  which  convey  it  to  foreign 
countries  are  subsidized.  In  course  of  time  this 
tells;  it  becomes  unprofitable  for  manufacturers  in 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     239 

a  free-trade  country  to  compete  with  a  State-aided 
manufacture;  prices  fall,  and  after  a  struggle  the 
manufacture  is  abandoned." 

Through  its  control  of  education  the  State  is 
able  to  work  for  the  same  end.  Numerous  technical 
Real  Schulen,  and  no  fewer  than  eleven  technical 
Universities  have  been  founded  in  which  the  youth 
of  Germany  are  prepared  for  industrial  pursuits. 
It  is  true  that,  by  multiplying  indefinitely  the 
amount  of  expert  labour  in  the  country,  these 
technical  schools  and  Universities  are  tending  to 
enrich  the  rich  and  impoverish  the  poor.  "  In 
these  "  (Universities  and  schools),  says  Mr.  Hueffer, 
"  the  sons  of  the  manufacturing,  the  shopkeeping 
and  the  working  classes  receive  courses  in  all  sorts 
of  applied  sciences,  and,  excellent  though  the 
education  is  and  excellent  though  these  institutions 
may  be  in  theory,  they  have  yet  had  the  effect  of 
very  distinctly  lowering  the  standard  of  public 
morals  and  of  commercial  virtue.  They  have 
enabled  the  rich  manufacturer  to  grow  vastly 
richer  by  the  means  of  brains  of  people  in  neces- 
sitous circumstances,  and  by  the  workmanship  of 
highly  skilled  mechanics  who  have  no  power  to 
exact  a  reasonable  recompense."  Elsewhere  the 
same  writer  says  that  the  future  fate  of  the  German 
urban  child  is  to  "  become  a  miserably  sweated 
applied  scientist  working  day  in,  day  out,  in  the 
laboratories  of  a  grossly  over-rich  manufacturer  to 
find  out  methods  of  putting  upon  the  market 
by-products  that  shall  still  more  enrich  the  manu- 
facturer." But  this  result  of  its  educational  policy 
may  have  been  premeditated  by  the  State.  It  is 
to  the  interest  of  the  German  State  to  conciliate 


240         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

Capital  rather  than  Labour;  for  Capital  is  strong 
and  independent,1  whereas  the  labour  of  an  over- 
docile  people  in  an  over-peopled  country  can 
scarcely  fail  to  prove  amenable  to  State  control. 

If  these  may  be  regarded  as  legitimate  methods 
of  aiding  industrial  development,  there  are  other 
methods  practised  in  Germany  to  which  the  term 
"  illegitimate  "  may  fairly  be  applied.  Sir  William 
Ramsay  has  described  one  of  these  :  "  Any  foreigner 
who  has  tried  to  secure  a  German  patent  knows 
how  the  Berlin  Patent  Office,  by  trivial  objec- 
tions and  tiresome  delays,  has  rendered  it  a  heart- 
breaking task.  Many  English  manufacturers  have 
suffered  from  a  species  of  organized  piracy,  con- 
sisting in  the  deliberate  infringement  by  Germans 

1  In  no  other  country  is  Capital  so  effectively  organized 
as  in  Germany.  The  author  of  The  Great  War,  Chap. 
LXXVL,  speaks  of  "  the  gigantic  German  trust  system  of 
production  which,  modelled  first  upon  the  American  trust 
system,  soon  surpassed  it  in  range,  closeness  of  control, 
general  efficiency,  and  concentrated  power."  He  tells  us 
that  the  industries  of  the  country  are  dominated  by  some 
three  hundred  men,  about  a  score  of  whom  form  an  inner 
oligarchy  which,  "  linked  with  the  German  money  trust, 
connected  with  the  Government,  and  in  many  cases  in  close 
personal  touch  with  the  Kaiser,  control  all  the  industrial 
resources  of  the  empire."  In  Germany,  once  she  had  de- 
cided to  embark  on  a  career  of  industrial  and  commercial 
activity,  the  ascendancy  of  Capital  and  the  concentration 
in  a  few  hands  of  the  power  which  Capital  confers,  might 
have  been  predicted.  For,  where  ultra-docility  is  the 
leading  feature  of  the  national  character,  each  sphere  of 
national  activity  is  sure  to  be  dominated  by  a  small 
minority,  and  in  each  of  these  minorities  a  will  to  power  and 
a  talent  for  organization  are  sure  to  evolve  themselves.  There 
was  a  time  when  an  oligarchy  of  landowing  officers,  clustered 
round  the  throne,  controlled  the  destinies  of  the  country. 
But,  with  the  development  of  trade  and  industry,  a  new 
oligarchy  of  capitalists  has  arisen,  and  is  beginning  to  rival 
the  old  in  the  enjoyment  both  of  royal  favour  and  of 
quasi-political  power. 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN  DOCILITY    241 

of  the  patents  which  they  hold;  from  the  difficulty 
of  securing  justice  in  the  German  courts,  or  the 
reappearance  of  the  infringers  under  a  new  name, 
until  from  sheer  weariness,  or  reluctance  to  throw 
good  money  after  bad,  the  unequal  contest  has 
been  abandoned." 

Where  such  practices  are  common,  the  standard 
of  commercial  honour  is  not  quixotically  high ;  and 
it  is  clear,  from  Sir  William  Ramsay's  indictment, 
that  in  Germany  the  State  has  co-operated  with 
the  men  of  business  in  lowering  it.  In  the  Middle 
Ages  the  Hanseatic  merchants,  having  opened 
their  ledgers  with  a  pious  invocation  of  the  Holy, 
Blessed  and  Glorious  Trinity,  proceeded  to  equip 
themselves  with  two  sets  of  weights  and  measures, 
one  of  which  they  could  use  as  buyers,  the  other 
as  sellers.  A  similar  procedure  seems  to  be  followed 
by  some  of  their  descendants.  Mr.  J.  W.  Perry, 
who  was  for  many  years  an  official  in  the  Maritime 
Customs  in  China  under  the  late  Sir  Robert  Hart, 
writes  as  follows  to  one  of  our  newspapers  :  "  The 
German  merchants'  ideas  of  business  morality  are 
on  a  par  with  their  Government's  regard  for 
treaties.  Their  attempts  to  defraud  the  Customs 
were  constant  and  systematic,  and  I  make  bold 
to  say  that  in  many  cases  it  was  only  by  these 
disreputable  methods  they  were  able  to  compete 
successfully  with  the  prices  quoted  by  their  British 
competitors.  A  favourite  German  method  of 
swindling  is  found  in  having  three  sets  of  invoices 
for  goods  imported  :  (i)  the  invoice  showing  the 
price  actually  paid;  (2)  an  invoice  for  presentation 
to  the  Customs  showing  a  much  lower  price  on 
which  the  ad  valorem  duty  is  to  be  levied;  and 


242         THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

(3)  an  invoice  showing  a  much  higher  price,  which 
is  for  the  Chinese  purchaser.  This  is  only  one  of 
many  contemptible  methods  employed.  During  a 
period  of  over  two  years  at  one  of  the  largest  ports 
in  China  I  had  brought  to  my  notice  case  after 
case  of  underhand  and  fraudulent  action  by  German 
firms,  and  in  the  same  period,  I  am  proud  to  say, 
there  was  not  a  single  instance  of  such  malpractices 
by  any  one  of  the  various  British  firms."  The 
Chinese  themselves  seem  to  have  formed  a  similar 
estimate  of  the  commercial  morality  of  the  Germans. 
An  English  merchant  who  had  resided  for  thirty 
years  in  China,  and  who,  let  me  say  in  passing, 
had  not  once  in  all  those  years  been  "let  in  "  by  a 
Chinese  merchant,  told  me  that  when  an  English- 
man is  talking  business  in  a  way  which  the  Chinese 
do  not  regard  as  perfectly  straight,  their  favourite 
phrase  of  reproach  is,  "  Now  you  are  talking 
German." 

There  is  another  aspect  of  German  unscrupulous- 
ness  in  trade  which  cannot  be  ignored.  Every 
German  who  accepts  a  situation  in  a  foreign  house 
of  business  is  a  possible  spy.  He  is  there  to  learn 
trade  secrets.  He  is  there,  it  may  be,  to  prove 
himself  worthy  of  being  entrusted  with  an  even 
higher  mission.  His  spying  may  savour  of  treachery. 
But  what  of  that  ?  Is  not  Deutschland  ueber  Alles  ? 
And  if  his  spying  will  promote  the  interests  of  the 
Fatherland,  is  it  not  morally  right  of  him  to  spy? 
The  truth  is  that  nothing  has  done  so  much  to 
debase  commercial  morality  in  Germany  as  the 
active  intervention  of  the  all-powerful  State  in 
trade.  For,  by  making  the  welfare  of  the  Father- 
land the  supreme  end  of  moral  action,  and  by 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     243 

entering  into  partnership  with  the  business  portion 
of  the  community  in  order  to  further  that  end,  it 
has  fostered  the  dangerous  delusion  that  there  is 
one  moral  law  for  Germans  and  another  for  the 
rest  of  mankind.  It  has  done  the  same,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  other  spheres  of  action.  Indeed,  it 
seems  to  be  the  mission  of  the  State  to  stand,  with 
drawn  sword,  in  the  way  of  every  movement  that 
the  soul  of  Germany  might  conceivably  make  in 
the  direction  of  ideal  good.  And  the  pity  of  it  is 
that  the  German  trader  will  be  the  more  likely 
to  listen  to  the  State's  insidious  suggestion  that, 
when  the  motive  is  patriotic,  immorality  ceases  to 
be  immoral,  because,  as  it  happens,  his  interests 
as  a  trader  coincide  with  the  supposed  interests  of 
his  country,  which  will  be  enriched — so  his  mentor 
assures  him — by  the  measures  which  he  takes  to 
enrich  himself. 

It  has  been  said  that  honesty  is  an  excellent 
virtue  if  one  can  afford  to  practise  it.  In  Germany 
this  cynical  aphorism  seems  to  be  taken  seriously. 
An  Englishman,  who  has  traded  with  Germany  for 
many  years,  in  a  recent  letter  to  a  newspaper  said 
that  so  long  as  his  affairs  prospered  the  German 
trader  was  honest  enough,  but  that  whenever  he 
got  into  difficulties  he  began  to  turn  and  twist  and 
wriggle,  and  do  all  he  could  to  evade  his  obliga- 
tions. And  Sir  William  Ramsay  says  that  "  com- 
mercial agreements  are  regarded,"  by  Germans,  "  as 
binding  only  so  long  as  some  advantage  is  to  be 
gained  by  keeping  to  them,  and  that  dishonesty  is 
excusable  if  only  it  leads  to  German  prosperity." 
"  We  are  slowly  and  incredulously  awakening," 
says  the  same  writer,  "  to  the  knowledge  that 


244        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

German  commercial  tricks  are  on  a  par  with  their 
tricks  in  war,  that  the  whole  nation  is  infected 
with  the  microbe  of  dishonour  and  dishonesty. 
What  we  have  to  face  is  a  nation  organized  for  a 
policy  of  dishonesty  and  a  nation  which,  as  a 
nation,  approves  of  that  policy."  This  is  perhaps 
an  overstatement ;  but,  according  to  the  testimony 
of  many  competent  witnesses,  it  is  the  overstatement 
of  a  strong  case. 

But  could  we  have  expected  the  substitution  of 
national  for  human  ideals  and  standards  in  morals 
to  bear  other  fruits  than  these?  If  Germany  is 
utterly  unscrupulous  in  diplomacy  and  in  war, 
could  we  expect  her,  State-ridden  as  she  is,  to  be 
rigidly  scrupulous  in  trade?  We  have  seen  that 
"  to  win  anyhow "  is  her  ideal  in  war.  If  the 
pursuit  of  wealth  for  its  own  sake  is  a  legitimate 
end  of  human  action,  as  it  seems  to  be  regarded 
in  most  Western  countries,  can  we  wonder  that 
Germany,  with  her  national  thoroughness,  has  made 
"  Get  rich  anyhow — get  rich  for  your  country's 
sake  as  well  as  for  your  own,"  her  motto  in  trade? 
The  familiar  saying,  "  Rem,  si  possis,  rede  ;  si  non 
rede,  quocunque  modo,"  makes  a  twofold  appeal  to 
the  German  trader,  an  appeal  to  his  patriotism  as 
well  as  to  his  love  of  gain. 

For  more  than  a  century  materialism — the  devo- 
tion of  life  to  material  ends  and  the  regulation  of 
life  by  material  standards — has  been  rampant  in 
the  West.  Germany  was  later  than  other  countries 
in  catching  the  prevailing  infection;  but  since  she 
caught  it  she  has  done  her  best  to  make  up  for  lost 
time.  For  she  has  given  herself  heart  and  soul  to 
the  new  way  of  living,  given  herself  to  it  with  a 


OUR  DEBT   TO   GERMAN   DOCILITY     245 

strenuousness  and  a  thoroughness  which  no  other 
nation  can  pretend  to  rival.1 

We  owe  her  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  having  done 
this,  just  as  we  owe  her  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  the 
fanaticism  of  her  narrow  patriotism  and  for  her 
systematic  ruthlessness  in  war.  Thanks  to  his 
dogmatism,  which  makes  the  typical  German  take 
quite  seriously  whatever  he  teaches;  thanks  to  his 
docility,  which  makes  him  take  quite  seriously 
whatever  he  is  taught;  and  thanks  to  his  conse- 
quent inability  to  laugh  at  or  even  to  criticize 
himself, — it  is  his  mission  to  set  the  Greek  ideal  of 
jurjdsv  ayav  at  defiance  and  to  overdo  whatever 
part  he  undertakes  to  play.  In  this  way  Germany 
has  become  to  the  other  nations  what  the  drunken 
Helot  was  to  the  children  of  his  master — a  warning 

1  Professor  Fugmann  of  Leipzig,  in  a  book  which  has 
recently  appeared  called  The  Blessing  of  War,  draws  the 
following  picture  of  Germany  before  the  outbreak  of  the 
present  war  :  "  There  was  dissension  on  all  sides.  The 
people  were  engrossed  in  the  pettiest  interests  of  the  day. 
The  life  lived  by  the  bulk  of  Germans  was  indescribable, 
even  though  serious  men  lifted  up  their  voices  against  the 
iniquity  of  it  all.  Fidelity  and  faith  had  disappeared.  A 
man's  word  had  no  value.  Contracts  were  made  only  to 
be  broken.  Business  in  general  assumed  a  shape  resembling 
a  huge  organized  deception.  The  corruptions  of  life  grew 
apace  in  town  and  country,  and  there  was  no  prophet,  no 
preacher  of  morals,  no  apostle  of  nature,  no  seer  capable 
of  stemming  the  overwhelming  stream  of  sexual  and  com- 
mercial immorality,  decay  and  degeneration.  Every  man 
who  professed  an  ideal  was  ridiculed.  Such  was  Germany 
before  the  war."  Professor  Fugmann  believes  that  the 
war  will  excise  this  moral  cancer.  But  operations  for 
cancer  are  seldom  permanently  successful ;  and  the  stories 
of  German  cruelty  and  treachery  in  the  field  and  of  German 
criminality  at  home  (see  Chapter  VI)  incline  one  to  believe 
that  the  moral  taint  which  has  produced  the  "  decay  and 
degeneration  "  of  which  Professor  Fugmann  complains  is  still 
in  the  "  blood  "  of  the  German  people. 


246         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

against  folly  and  vice.  While  we  are  loitering  in 
a  dangerous  path,  she  presses  on — with  "  pecca 
fortiter "  as  her  motto — to  its  predestined  goal. 
She  has  taught  us  that  patriotism,  when  uninspired 
by  any  larger  sentiment,  degenerates  into  collective 
selfishness  and  hatred,  and  cuts  a  nation  off  from 
the  fellowship  of  its  kind.  She  has  made  us  realize 
the  intrinsic  hideousness  and  inhumanity  of  war. 
She  is  now  rendering  us  another  and  not  less 
valuable  service.  While  we  have  dallied  with 
materialism,  she  has  boldly  adopted  it  both  as  her 
national  policy  and  as  her  philosophy  of  life.  And 
she  is  now  teaching  us,  out  of  the  fulness  of  her 
own  experience,  that  Mammon,  when  worshipped 
for  his  own  sake,  will  brook  no  rival  god.  It  is 
something  to  be  able  to  warn  those  who  are  en- 
tangling themselves  in  the  snares  of  a  temptress, 
to  warn  them  by  one's  own  example,  that  "  the 
dead  are  with  her  and  that  her  guests  are  in  the 
depths  of  Hell." 


CHAPTER   X 

OUR   DEEPEST   DEBT   TO   GERMAN    DOCILITY 

WE  owe  a  deep  debt  of  gratitude  to  Germany  for 
the  thoroughness,  both  in  theory  and  practice, 
which  has  made  her  overplay  the  parts  of  the 
patriot,  the  fighter,  and  the  trader,  and  in  so  doing 
open  our  eyes  to  the  evils  which  are  latent  in  self- 
centred  patriotism,  in  militarism,  and  in  the  quest 
of  wealth. 

We  owe  a  still  deeper  debt  of  gratitude  to  Germany 
for  having  compelled  us  to  reconsider  our  attitude 
towards  life.  Her  own  attitude  towards  life  has 
been  so  clearly  denned  and  so  forcibly  obtruded 
on  us  in  the  course  of  the  war,  that  we  cannot 
avoid  studying  and  criticizing  it ;  and  in  the  act  of 
criticizing  an  attitude  which  is  in  some  sort  a 
challenge  and  a  defiance,  we  are  being  compelled  to 
reflect  on  and  criticize  our  own. 

Germany  sees  life  through  a  distorting  medium; 
but  she  sees  her  caricature  of  life  "  steadily  "  and 
"  whole."  When  I  say  this  I  mean  two  things. 
I  mean,  in  the  first  place,  that  she  sees  life  from  the 
cradle  to  the  grave  as  an  undivided  whole.  What 
is  good  or  bad  for  the  child  is  good  or  bad,  mutatis 
mutandis,  for  the  man.  There  is  no  break  of  gauge 
on  the  threshold  of  manhood  or  elsewhere.  I 
mean,  in  the  second  place,  that  she  has  fully  made 

247 


248         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

up  her  mind  as  to  the  meaning  and  value  of  life. 
She  has  decided  that  "  salvation  "  is  to  be  achieved 
by  self-aggrandizement,  not  by  self-development ; 
and  she  is  practising  this  religion,  if  one  may  call  it 
so,  with  a  whole-heartedness  which  puts  the  votaries 
of  nobler  faiths  to  shame. 

Let  us  consider  her  outlook  on  life  under  each 
of  these  heads.  The  docility  of  the  average  adult 
in  Germany  is  as  complete  as  the  docility  of  the 
average  school-child  in  other  countries.  Hence, 
in  Germany  it  is  possible  to  do  what  is  not  possible 
elsewhere, — to  make  the  ideal  which  dominates 
education  the  dominant  ideal  of  life.  Now,  the 
ideal  which  dominates  education  in  Germany  does 
not  materially  differ  from  that  which  dominates 
education  in  other  countries.  In  all  parts  of  what 
we  call  the  civilized  world  a  certain  type  of  education 
has  long  been  accepted  as  orthodox.  The  leading 
features  of  this  orthodox  education  are  the  following, 
— on  the  part  of  the  teacher  coercive  discipline  and 
dogmatic  instruction;  on  the  part  of  the  child 
mechanical  obedience  and  passive  reception  of 
what  is  taught.  These  features  are  familiar  to  all 
of  us.  We  are  inclined  to  accept  them  as  inevitable, 
as  rooted  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  to  regard  the 
scheme  of  education  to  which  they  belong  as  a 
dispensation  of  Providence  which  is  beyond  criti- 
cism, and  which  we  can  but  take  and  make  the  best 
of.  But,  except  in  Germany,  we  do  not  seriously 
allow  this  scheme  of  education  to  dominate  our 
adult  lives.  We  think  of  it  as  suitable  for  children, 
and  when  we  grow  up  we  put  it  away — such  at 
least  is  our  intention — with  other  childish  things. 
Insensibly,  indeed,  it  continues  to  influence  us. 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY     249 

But  that  we  are  in  revolt  against  it  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that,  directly  our  education  (in  the  conventional 
sense  of  the  word)  is  finished,  we  free  ourselves 
from  the  disciplinary  control  which  is  of  its  essence, 
and  try  to  order  our  lives  for  ourselves  and  on 
other  lines.  To  some  of  us  this  day  of  liberation 
comes  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  to  others  at  sixteen, 
to  others  at  eighteen  or  even  later.  But  sooner  or 
later  it  comes  to  all  of  us;  and  then,  instead  of 
building  on  the  foundations  which  education  has 
laid,  we  set  to  work  to  reconstruct  life  on  another 
basis,  if  not  on  another  site. 

It  is  in  this  work  of  reconstruction  that  nation 
differs  from  nation.  And  it  is  in  adhering  to  the 
ground-plan  and  building  on  the  foundations  which 
education  has  laid  that  Germany  stands  apart  from 
the  rest  of  the  world.  If  coercive  discipline  and 
dogmatic  instruction  are  good  for  children  and 
adolescents,  they  must  surely  be  good,  with  certain 
necessary  modifications,  for  adults  of  all  ages.  If 
the  conventional  scheme  of  education  is  the  only 
conceivable  scheme,  if  the  principle  which  is  at 
the  heart  of  it  is  beyond  criticism,  should  it  not 
form  the  basis,  to  say  the  least,  of  the  adult  scheme 
of  life  ?  So  the  German  State  seems  to  have  argued ; 
and,  according  to  its  wont,  it  has  translated  its 
theory  into  practice.  Of  all  modern  nations 
Germany  alone,  following  the  example  of  ancient 
Sparta,  has  brought  her  scheme  of  life  into  harmony 
with  her  scheme  of  education.  In  Germany,  educa- 
tion is  what  it  ought  always  to  be,  a  lifelong  process. 
The  adult  citizen  is  subjected  by  the  State  to  constant 
control  and  supervision,  differing  only  in  degree 
from  that  to  which  the  child  is  subjected  by  his 


250         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

teacher.  From  the  day  of  his  birth  till  he  arrives 
at  years  of  discretion  he  is  kept  in  leading-strings. 
The  pressure  on  him  is  then  relaxed,  except  indeed 
during  his  term  of  service  in  the  army;  but  he 
continues  to  be  kept  in  leading-strings  till  the  day 
of  his  death.  It  is  because  there  is  no  break  of 
gauge  in  the  life  of  the  citizen  that  Germany,  as  a 
nation,  is  in  some  respects  irresistibly  strong.  But 
nations,  like  individuals,  have  the  defects  of  their 
qualities ;  and  even  logical  consistency  and  inward 
harmony  can  be  bought  at  too  high  a  price.  It 
is  one  thing  to  bring  life  as  a  whole  under  the  domina- 
tion of  a  single  ideal.  It  is  another  thing  to  possess 
an  ideal  which  is  worthy  to  dominate  the  whole  of 
life. 

That  the  German  ideal  is  unworthy  to  dominate 
life — let  alone  the  whole  of  life — I  need  not  take 
pains  to  prove.  For  it  is  not  with  the  defects  of 
the  German  ideal  that  I  am  now  concerned,  but 
with  the  fact  that  Germany  has  based  her  scheme 
of  life — be  the  ideal  that  dominates  it  good  or  bad— 
on  her  scheme  of  education,  and  in  doing  so  has 
dealt  with  life,  in  all  its  gradation  and  duration, 
as  an  unbroken  whole.  It  is  here  that  Germany 
is  strong,  and  that  we  and  our  Allies — and  we  perhaps 
even  more  than  our  Allies — are  weak.  Life  is  an 
unbroken  whole;  and  we  ought  to  deal  with  it  as 
such.  Germany  has  so  dealt  with  it.  We  have  not. 
Education  is  a  continuous  and  lifelong  process; 
and  we  ought  to  deal  with  it  as  such.  Germany 
has  so  dealt  with  it.  We  have  not.  The  German 
ideal  of  education  coincides  at  every  vital  point 
with  the  German  ideal  of  life.  Our  ideal  of  educa- 
tion, so  far  as  we  can  be  said  to  have  one,  is  opposed 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY     251 

to  our  ideal  of  life.  As  educationists,  we  believe 
in  the  type  of  education  which  Germany  has  idealized 
and  transformed  into  a  philosophy  of  life.  We 
believe  in  dogmatic  direction  and  the  discipline 
of  drill.  As  citizens  of  a  free  country,  as  rulers 
of  a  great  Empire,  we  believe  in  the  anti-German 
philosophy  of  "  Live  and  let  live."  From  the  cradle 
to  the  grave  Germany  stamps  her  philosophy  of 
life  on  every  German  citizen.  This  is  her  strength. 
We  are  of  two  minds;  and  this  is  our  weakness. 
Germany  subjects  the  child  to  coercive  discipline 
and  dogmatic  pressure;  and  when  he  grows  up, 
though  she  loosens  the  reins  that  control  him,  she 
continues  to  treat  him  as  a  child.  We  too  subject 
the  child  to  coercive  discipline  and  dogmatic  pres- 
sure; but  long  before  he  is  grown  up  we  give  him 
his  freedom  and  tell  him  to  live  his  own  life  and  work 
out  his  own  salvation.  Are  we  wise  ?  Is  not  the 
change  which  we  bring  about  too  violent  and  too 
abrupt  ?  If  we  really  believe  in  our  ideal  of  life, 
ought  we  not  to  train  the  young  to  live  up  to  it  ? 
Germany,  in  her  effort  to  strangle  spontaneous  life, 
has  arrayed  herself  against  the  strongest  of  all 
forces,  the  instinct  to  live.  If  that  instinct  is 
fighting  on  our  side,  the  reason  is  that,  as  citizens 
and  rulers,  we  have  instinctively  respected  spon- 
taneous life.  But  have  we  done  so,  are  we  doing 
so,  as  teachers  ? 

I  am  raising  a  question  which  has  many  side 
issues  and  which  bristles  with  practical  difficulties. 
I  do  not  wish  to  dogmatize  about  it,  but  I  do  wish 
to  set  people  thinking.  I  wish  people  to  realize 
that  there  is  a  civil  war  in  this  country,  from  which 
Germany  is  free — a  war  between  two  conflicting 


252         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

ideals,  the  very  ideals  that  are  meeting  and  grappling 
in  the  great  war  which  is  shaking  the  whole  world. 
And  I  wish  them  to  realize  that  this  civil  war  becomes 
fiercer  and  intenser  as  time  goes  on.  For,  on  the 
one  hand,  with  the  spread  of  education,  our  educa- 
tional ideal  is  constantly  striving  to  encroach  on 
our  adult  life.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  with  our 
growing  consciousness  of  the  meaning  and  value 
of  freedom,  our  ideal  of  life  is  trying,  in  its  blind 
instinctive  way,  to  dominate  the  education  of  the 
young. 

What  is  to  be  the  issue  of  this  vital  struggle? 
Are  we  to  leave  things  as  they  are,  trusting  that 
somehow  or  other  they  will  right  themselves? 
This  is  the  policy  of  those  who  hold  that,  because 
we  have  hitherto  stumbled  along  pretty  successfully, 
there  is  no  need  for  a  radical  change.  I  think  that 
this  policy  is  mistaken,  and,  if  persisted  in,  will 
lead  to  disaster.  I  think  that  there  is  need,  and 
urgent  need,  for  a  radical  change.  I  think  that 
the  catastrophe  of  this  terrible  war  has  come  upon 
us  in  order,  for  one  thing,  to  compel  us  to  reconsider 
our  ways.  Many  of  the  weaknesses  which  the  war 
has  revealed  in  us  are  due  to  our  being  of  two  minds 
about  the  great  issues  of  life.  In  particular,  the 
want  of  discipline  which  has  manifested  itself  in 
strikes,  slackness  at  work,  and  over-drinking,  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  manhood  of  the  nation, 
which  is  not  disciplined,  as  in  Germany,  by  a  des- 
potic and  inquisitorial  State,  does  not  learn,  during 
the  periods  of  childhood  and  adolescence,  to  dis- 
cipline itself.  If  the  war,  which  is  judging  us  all, 
will  condemn  Germany  for  having  adopted  a  false 
ideal  of  life,  it  will  condemn  us  for  having  tried  to 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY     253 

live  under  two  irreconcilable  ideals.  The  time 
has  come  for  us  to  reconsider  our  ways.  Fas  est 
et  ab  hoste  doceri.  Germany  has  set  us  an  example 
of  consistency  and  singleness  of  purpose  which  we 
ought  to  follow.  To  follow — but  on  English,  not 
on  German,  lines.  Let  us  ask  ourselves  one  crucial 
question.  Are  we  prepared  to  bring  our  ideal  of 
life  into  harmony  with  our  ideal  of  education — the 
ideal  of  coercive  discipline  and  dogmatic  pressure? 
If  we  are  not,  if  the  bare  suggestion  of  this  is 
abhorrent  to  us,  we  must  resolutely  face  the  only 
alternative  to  it.  We  must  begin  to  think  seriously 
of  bringing  our  ideal  of  education  into  harmony 
with  our  ideal  of  life.  How  best  to  do  this, 
how  best  to  let  the  rising  generation  live,  how 
best  to  help  it  to  unfold  its  hidden  life,  how 
best,  in  educating  it,  to  harmonize  order  with 
freedom,  direction  with  spontaneity,  organization 
from  without  with  growth  from  within,  is  a  problem 
which  will  give  us  much  to  think  about  for  many 
generations. 

One  thing,  however,  is  clear.  If  we  are  to  reform 
education  in  order  to  make  it  the  basis  of  a  har- 
monious scheme  of  life,  we  must  reconstruct  our 
whole  "  theory  of  things."  We  have  stumbled 
upon  our  national  ideal  of  "  live  and  let  live." 
We  did  not  think  our  way  to  it ;  and  we  have  never 
tried  to  think  it  out.  The  time  has  come  for  us 
to  ask  ourselves  what  it  implies — in  other  words, 
what  larger  ideal  is  behind  it.  "  Live  and  let 
live."  Why  are  we  to  let  live?  Because  if  we  do 
not,  we  shall  strangle  life,  first  in  others  and  then 
in  ourselves.  "  In  others,  yes,"  says  the  worshipper 
of  "  power."  "  But  why  in  ourselves  ?  Has  not  he 


254         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

who  is  strong  enough  to  strangle  life  in  others, 
raised  his  own  life  to  a  higher  level  ?  " 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  German  ideal.  In  basing 
her  scheme  of  life  on  her  scheme  of  education, 
Germany  has  gone  perilously  near  to  recognizing 
the  existence  of  two  ideals  of  life.  As  this  would 
be  incompatible  with  her  logical  consistency  and 
singleness  of  purpose,  we  must  assume  that  in  her 
estimation  one  only  of  them  is  really  worthy  of  the 
name.  Which,  then,  is  the  ideal  state,  the  teacher's 
or  the  pupil's,  the  master's  or  the  slave's  ?  In  the 
light  of  a  higher  ideal  both  states  might  be  equally 
transfigured.  But  when  the  antithesis  of  authority 
to  obedience  is  itself  idealized,  we  cannot  but  ask 
on  which  side  of  the  antithesis  the  true  life  is  to  be 
lived.  For  consider  what  happens  when,  as  in 
Germany,  the  State  plays  the  schoolmaster — the 
rigid  disciplinarian,  the  dogmatic  instructor — to 
the  nation  at  large.  A  small  minority — an  inner 
ring  of  officers  and  officials — rides  roughshod  over 
the  majority,  drills  it,  dragoons  it,  instructs  it, 
moulds  it  to  its  will.  In  doing  this  the  minority 
becomes  overbearing,  arrogant,  self-sufficient,  self- 
centred.  At  any  rate,  that  is  the  frame  of  mind 
which  the  constant  exercise  of  autocratic  authority 
tends  to  generate.  With  what  feelings  will  it  be 
regarded  by  the  docile  majority  who  bear  its  pres- 
sure? With  resentment,  perhaps,  but  also  with 
secret  envy.  To  be  in  a  position  to  say  "  Do  what 
I  tell  you  "  is  the  cherished  dream  of  every  German. 
Thus  the  exercise  of  autocratic  authority  is  enjoyed 
by  those  who  rule,  envied  by  those  who  obey, 
prized  above  all  things  by  both  sections  of  the 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY     255 

community.  In  other  words,  when  the  antithesis 
of  authority  to  obedience  is  idealized,  when  the 
national  ideal  is  that  of  an  irresponsible  State  play- 
ing the  schoolmaster  to  the  whole  nation,  the  ideal 
life,  in  the  judgment  of  both  the  opposing  parties, 
is  that  of  the  schoolmaster,  not  of  the  pupil,  of  the 
rulers,  not  of  the  ruled. 

But  here  a  practical  difficulty  arises.  For  how 
long  and  on  what  conditions  will  the  majority — 
the  nation — consent  to  be  ruled  by  the  minority — 
the  overbearing  and  dictatorial  State?  For  ever, 
on  one  condition.  To  be  in  a  position  to  say  "  Do 
what  I  tell  you  "  is,  as  I  have  just  said,  the  cherished 
dream  of  every  German.  If  the  State  is  to  retain 
its  hold  on  the  devotion  of  its  subjects,  it  must 
help  them,  one  and  all,  to  fulfil  this  dream.  But 
how  is  this  to  be  done  ?  The  delegation  of  authority 
calls  into  being  a  whole  hierarchy  of  officials,  not 
one  of  whom  is  too  small  to  play  the  petty  tyrant 
when  he  gets  the  chance.  But  that  is  not  enough. 
There  may  be  hundreds  of  thousands  of  German 
officials.  But  there  are  tens  of  millions  of  German 
citizens.  How  is  their  pious  aspiration  towards 
the  ideal  life — the  life  of  the  despot  and  the  dog- 
matist— to  be  gratified?  By  enabling  the  German 
nation  to  play  the  schoolmaster  towards  the  rest 
of  mankind.  The  ideal  life  is  always  the  life  of  a 
minority,  of  the  "  elect."  But  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  minority  in  Germany  should  not  expand 
till  it  embraced  the  entire  nation,  in  which  case  the 
subject  majority  would  be  the  whole  non-German 
world.  The  nation  will  allow  itself  to  be  drilled 
and  dragooned  by  the  State,  if  the  State  will  allow 
it — make  it  possible  for  it — to  drill  and  dragoon 


256         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

the  rest  of  mankind.  The  State  has  entered 
into  the  spirit  of  this  bargain.  "  If  you  will  do 
what  I  tell  you,"  it  says  to  the  nation,  "you  in 
your  turn  shall  say  '  Do  what  I  tell  you,'  to  all  the 
peoples  of  the  earth." 

This  bargain,   when   duly  ratified  by  both  the 
contracting  parties,  withdraws  Germany  from  the 
fellowship  of  the  nations.     Henceforth  the  supposed 
welfare  of  his  country  (which  he  identifies  with  its 
political   and   commercial   ascendancy)    is,   for  the 
patriotic  German,  the  final  end  of  all  that  he  thinks 
and  does.     "  I  am  my  own  ideal,"  says  the  German 
people,  "  I  am  a  law  unto  myself.     I  make  my  own 
moral  code.     I  am  my  own  arbiter  of  right  and 
wrong.     Whatever  serves  my  will  to  power  is  good. 
Whatever    thwarts    it    is    evil.     Murder,    plunder, 
lust,  lying,  cruelty,  treachery,  disloyalty,  dishonesty, 
if  these  will  further  the  interests  of  Germany  their 
viciousness  will  turn  to  virtue.     For  I  am  under  the 
special  protection  and  patronage  of  the  Almighty; 
and  my  aggrandizement,  by  whatever  means  and 
at  whatever  cost  to  others,  is  His  will . ' '     The  attitude 
of  Germany  towards  other  countries  is,  in  brief, 
frankly    inhuman.     The    "  heathen "    nations    are 
Dunger-volk.     Their  function  is  to  manure  the  soil 
in  which  the  German  "  world-race  "  is  to  be  raised. 
"  It  was  the  English  Army,"  said  a  German  sergeant 
to  a  neutral  subject  travelling  in  Germany,  "  backed 
by  the  unexpectedly  fine  fighting  of  the  French 
and  our  treacherous  betrayal  by  those  wicked  Belgians 
that  put  our  plans  back  for  a  year."     The  paradoxi- 
cal audacity  of  the  words  that  I  have  italicized 
takes  one's    breath   away.     The  inversion   of  the 
real  order  of  things  could  not  be  more  complete. 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY     257 

The  Belgians  were  wicked  traitors  because  they 
dared  to  resist  a  wickedly  treacherous  invasion  of 
their  country  !  Two  "  saving  "  senses  must  have 
died  out  of  the  speaker's  soul, — imaginative  sym- 
pathy, which  makes  it  possible  for  a  man  to  enter 
into  the  feelings  of  others,  and  the  sense  of  humour, 
which  makes  it  possible  for  him  to  laugh  at  himself. 
The  inability  of  the  average  German  to  look  at 
things  from  any  point  of  view  but  his  own  may 
almost  be  said  to  amount  to  genius.  To  reason 
with  such  a  mind  would  be  useless.  To  reason  is 
to  appeal  to  a  common  ground  of  agreement;  and 
Germany,  by  deliberately  substituting  a  national 
for  a  human  standpoint  in  morals  and  politics, 
has  separated  herself  so  completely  from  the  rest 
of  the  nations  that,  instead  of  a  common  ground 
of  agreement,  there  is  a  fathomless  gulf  between 
her  and  them. 

Salvation,  then,  as  Germany  understands  the 
word,  is  for  her  alone,  and  is  to  be  achieved  by 
self-aggrandizement,  which  will  take  the  form 
either  of  forcibly  dominating  others  or  of  making 
them  subservient  to  her  material  interests.  Pro- 
fessor Dr.  Paul  Forster  has  recently  written  a  letter 
to  the  "  Tag  "  in  which  he  expounds  the  views  of 
schoolmasters  serving  in  the  trenches  as  to  the 
future  of  education  in  Germany.  Various  changes 
are  advocated,  all  crassly  materialistic  and  sordidly 
utilitarian.  A  writer  in  the  Westminster  Gazette, 
in  a  brief  resume  of  Professor  Forster's  letter,  says 
that  the  German  boy  of  the  future  "  will  be  in- 
structed to  discover  what  interests  Germany  has 
in  other  countries.  That  will  be  the  touchstone  of 
the  value  of  his  geography  lessons  " ;  and  adds 
s 


258         THE   NEMESIS   OF   DOCILITY 

that  "  he  is  to  be  taught  to  despise  and  neglect  the 
learning  of  all  countries,  except  in  so  far  as  it  can 
be  made  subservient  to  the  commercial  interests 
of  his  own  country."  (Bei  welchem  Lande  heraus- 
heben  :  welche  Interesse  hdben  wir  dort  P)  There  is 
nothing  cynical  in  these  proposals.  They  are  made 
in  perfect  good  faith.  Germany  is  a  predatory 
nation,  and  takes  no  pains  to  conceal  the  fact.  What 
she  can  get  out  of  the  other  nations,  what  material 
gains  she  can  make  at  their  expense,  is  the  only 
thing  that  matters.  This  planet  of  ours  exists  for 
her  benefit,  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  human  race. 

Here  we  have  tribalism  in  its  most  malignant 
form,  tribalism  poisoned  and  perverted  by  the  belief 
of  the  tribe  (or  the  nation)  that  it  is  the  Chosen 
People  of  the  Universal  God.  Tribalism  was  a 
necessary  stage  in  the  evolution  of  human  society; 
and  human  nature  has  been  permanently  enriched 
by  the  self-effacing  devotion  which  the  tribe  evoked 
from  its  tribesmen.  But  this  relapse  into  tribalism 
in  the  twentieth  century,  this  revival  of  it  on  a  vast 
scale  by  one  of  the  mightiest  of  modern  nations, 
is  a  strange  and  terrible  tragedy  which  bids  fair  to 
undo  the  work  of  a  hundred  generations.  Since 
the  days  of  tribal  selflessness  and  tribal  selfishness 
a  great  drama  has  been  enacted— 

"  Une  immense  esperance  a  traverse  la  terre ; 
Malgre  nous  vers  le  ciel  il  faut  lever  les  yeux." 

For  the  Prussianized  Germany  of  to-day  this  drama 
is  an  idle  phantasy.  The  immense  hope  for  the 
human  race — the  hope  of  all-embracing  brother- 
hood under  the  all-loving  fatherhood  of  God — the 
appeal  of  the  over-arching  Heaven  to  the  general 
heart  of  man,  are  for  her  as  though  they  had  never 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY     259 

been.     Her  outlook  on   the  Universe  is  national, 
not  cosmic.1     In  other  words  she  has  become  an 

1  If  the  pious  German,  in  one  of  his  devotional  moods, 
does  "lift  his  eyes  to  the  heavens,"  he  sees  nothing  there 
but  the  canopy  of  his  own  country.  The  Rev.  Fritz 
Philippe,  in  a  sermon  recently  delivered  in  Berlin,  said  that 
"  Germany's  divine  mission  is  to  crucify  humanity.  It 
is  therefore  the  duty  of  German  soldiers  to  strike  blows 
of  merciless  violence;  they  must  kill,  they  must  burn, 
they  must  work  wholesale  destruction.  Half-measures 
would  be  impious ;  there  must  be  thorough  war  without 
compassion."  The  Rev.  Dr.  Lobet,  pastor  of  the  principal 
Lutheran  Church  in  Leipzig,  told  his  flock  that  "  we 
(Germans)  are  carrying  out  Divine  wishes  in  destroying 
our  enemies  and  in  establishing  our  own  power  ...  we 
must  therefore  fight  the  wicked  by  all  possible  means ; 
their  sufferings  must  please  us ;  their  cries  of  anguish  must 
fall  upon  deaf  German  ears.  There  can  be  no  compro- 
mise with  the  forces  of  hell,  no  pity  for  the  slaves  of  Satan." 
Dr.  Rheinhold  Seeberg,  Professor  of  Theology  at  the 
University  of  Berlin,  in  a  sermon  preached  in  the  cathedral, 
said  :  "  We  do  not  hate  our  enemies.  No,  we  obey  the 
Divine  command  to  love  them.  When  we  kill  them, 
when  we  inflict  untold  sufferings  on  them,  when  we  burn 
their  homes  and  overrun  their  territories,  we  are  performing 
a  labour  of  love." 

The  Standard's  special  correspondent  in  Switzerland,  who 
has  regaled  us  with  these  choice  extracts,  says  that  they 
"  are  fair  examples  of  the  work  of  the  German  pulpit 
since  the  beginning  of  the  war.  Practically  every  preacher 
in  Germany  has  delivered  sermons  on  these  lines  Sunday 
after  Sunday,  until  the  congregations  of  all  churches  have 
become  saturated  with  pharisaical  self-satisfaction." 

Are  these  ministers  of  the  State-enthralled  Lutheran 
Church  speaking  to  their  brief,  or  do  they  really  believe 
these  things  ?  It  is  possible — so  strange  is  the  German 
psychology — that  they  both  speak  to  their  brief  and  believe 
what  they  say.  But  what  a  pass  things  have  come  to  when 
the  pulpit  utterances  of  professors  and  pastors  are  scarcely 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  maniacal  ravings  of  criminal 
lunatics  !  Yet  it  is  to  this  hideous  practical  paradox,  to 
this  open  advocacy  of  the  perpetration  of  nameless  crimes 
and  horrors  ad  majorem  Dei  gloriam,  that  the  doctrine 
of  a  "  Chosen  People  "  logically  leads.  In  the  days  of  the 
Inquisition  the  doctrine  of  a  Chosen  Church  led  to  the 
same  goal. 


260        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

egomaniac.     Egomania    in    a    human    being    is    a 
recognized  form  of  madness,  and  as  such  is  a  calam- 
ity for   him  and   his    neighbours.     The    egomania 
of  a  great  nation  is  a  calamity  for  the  whole  world. 
When  the  expansive  instincts  are  at  work,  whether 
in  an  individual  or  a  people,  they  must  take  one 
of  two  alternative  paths, — the  path  of  self-aggran- 
dizement which  leads  to  the  semblance  of  growth 
and   greatness,    or    the    path    of    self-development 
which  leads  to  the  reality.     In  Germany  they  have 
taken  the  former  path.     But  the  doom  of  those  who 
think  to    be  "  saved  "   by  self-aggrandizement  is 
that  in  their  efforts  to  expand  life  they  inevitably 
contract  it.     For  we  expand  life  through  imagina- 
tion and  sympathy,  which  take  us  out  of  ourselves, 
in  general  into  the  world  around  us,  and  in  particular 
into  the  lives  of  other  men.     If  life  is  really  expand- 
ing, it  must  overflow  into  those  channels.     And  if 
those  channels  are  closed  against  it  by  its  own 
action,   it  has   ceased  to   expand,   and,   since  the 
fountain  of  life  is  fed  by  its  outflow  even  more 
than  by  its  intake,  it  has  therefore  begun  to  contract. 
The  truth  is  that  life  is  one  and  indivisible,  and 
that  "  the  united  spirit  of  life  "  is  "  our  only  true 
self/'     It  is  open  to  us  to  share  in  that  universal 
life  through  oneness  with  our  kind.     If  we  will  not 
do  so,  we  cut  ourselves  off  from  the  rising  sap  that 
vitalizes  all  things,  and  doom  ourselves  to  wither 
on  our  stalks. 

This  is  the  answer  to  the  question  that  I  recently 
left  unanswered.  The  power  to  strangle  life  is 
a  proof  of  deficient,  not  of  superabundant  vitality. 
The  muscular  force  of  a  maniac  is  notorious,  but  it 
is  not  the  force  of  sanity  and  health.  He  who 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY    261 

thinks  to  expand  his  own  life  by  encroaching  on 
life  in  others,  does  not  know  where  the  one  unfailing 
source  of  life  is  to  be  found.  He  does  not  know 
that  love,  the  apotheosis  of  sympathy,  is  the 
mightiest  of  all  expansive  forces,  and  that  the  real 
self  is  to  be  won,  not  by  self-aggrandizement,  but 
by  the  self-loss  that  finds  its  consummation  in 
love. 

These  are  truths  which  Germany  must  learn  for 
herself,  for  no  one  else  can  teach  them  to  her. 
Having  separated  herself  from  her  kind  and  un- 
learned the  language  of  our  common  humanity,  she 
has  become  spiritually  deaf  and  dumb,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  converse  with  her  except  in  the  dread- 
ful sign-language  of  war.  She  must  dree  her  own 
weird.  But  what  of  us,  her  enemies  ?  In  choosing 
the  path  of  self-aggrandizement,  in  waging  war  for 
dominion  and  plunder,  she  has  compelled  us,  with 
or  without  the  consent  of  our  consciousness,  to 
take  the  path  of  self-development.  So  far  we  have 
not  got  beyond  the  conception  of  national  self- 
development,  of  the  right  of  each  nation,  however 
small,  to  live  its  own  life,  to  develop  its  own  type 
of  civilization,  to  pursue  its  own  ideal,  to  make  its 
own  contribution  to  the  cause  of  human  progress. 
It  is  something  to  have  arrived  at  this  conception; 
and  we  owe  Germany  a  supreme  debt  of  gratitude 
for  having  forced  us  to  champion  the  cause  of 
nationality,  and  in  doing  so  to  marshal  our  forces 
under  the  banner  of  freedom,  the  banner  which 

"torn,  but  flying, 
Streams  like  the  thunder-cloud  against  the  wind." 

Shall  we  be  able  to  advance  from  the  conception  of 
national  self-development  to  the  larger  conception 


262        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

of  human  self-development,  of  the  fulfilment  of 
man's  destiny  by  the  realization,  in  each  and  in 
all,  of  those  infinite  potencies  of  life  which  we  hold 
from  the  source  of  all  life  as  a  sacred  trust  ?  Time 
alone  can  answer  this  question.  But  one  thing 
is  certain.  If  self-development  is  to  win  acceptance 
as  the  ideal  end  of  man's  being,  our  attitude  towards 
education  must  be  radically  changed;  for,  on  the 
one  hand,  self-development  cannot  be  begun  too 
early,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  under  the  existing 
educational  regime,  it  cannot  make  a  fair  start  in 
childhood  or  youth.  Should  such  a  change  take 
place,  should  a  revolution  in  our  educational  ideals 
and  aims  and  principles  be  the  outcome,  however 
remote,  of  the  present  struggle,  we  shall  not  have 
fought  and  suffered  in  vain. 

In  paying  this  last  tribute  of  thanks  to  Germany 
I  have  but  developed  an  idea  which  I  had  already 
briefly  expounded,  the  idea  that  Germany's  attempt 
to  contract  the  life  of  the  soul — in  herself  by  self- 
aggrandizement,  in  other  people  by  rigid  and 
oppressive  rule — is  in  its  way  as  necessary  to  the 
growth  of  the  human  soul  as  is  the  effort  to  expand 
life;  the  idea  that  Germany  is  providing  the  soul 
with  what  it  needs  above  all  things — needs  for  its 
own  security,  which  would  be  imperilled  if  it  were 
not  forced  to  consolidate  its  gains, — with  resist- 
ance to  be  met  and  fought  against  and  overcome. 
We  shall  not  fight  the  less  strenuously  for  enter- 
taining this  idea.  Nay,  we  shall  fight  the  more 
strenuously,  for  we  shall  realize  that  if  we  are  to 
see  a  meaning  and  a  purpose  in  Germany's  insane 
"  will  to  power  "  we  must  fight  her  to  a  standstill; 
that  only  by  being  fought  to  a  standstill  can 


DEEPEST  DEBT  TO  GERMAN  DOCILITY     263 

Germany  (in  her  present  mood)  fulfil  her  function 
in  life  and  make  good  her  right  to  exist. 

Let  us  fight  to  the  death,  then,  for  the  right  to 
live.  Let  us  fight  to  the  death,  for  Germany's  sake 
as  well  as  for  our  own.  A  victory  for  Germany 
would  be  even  more  fatal  to  her  than  to  us.  For 
if  she  is  to  find  her  lost  soul,  her  people  must  win 
freedom — the  freedom  that  carries  responsibility 
with  it — for  themselves.  And  this  they  will  not 
begin  to  do  until  the  ruling  caste,  to  which  they  are 
so  blindly  loyal,  has  been  discredited  in  their  eyes. 
Let  us  continue  to  fight  then,  without  counting  the 
cost.  Let  us 

"  bear  it  out  even  to  the  edge  of  doom." 

But  while  we  do  so  let  us  remind  ourselves  that  there 
is  one  bond  of  union  between  our  enemies  and 
ourselves,  the  bond  of  suffering.  The  sorrow  and 
misery  which  the  war  has  caused  are  incalculable; 
but  we  who  are  fighting  for  freedom  have  suffered 
no  more  than  our  enemies  who  are  fighting  for 
dominion.  For  if  their  territories  have  been  less 
devastated  by  hostile  forces,  their  losses  in  battle 
have  probably  been  heavier;  and  their  privations, 
though  much  less  than  those  of  the  dwellers  in  the 
devastated  territories,  have  probably  been  more 
widely  spread.  At  any  rate,  they  have  suffered 
deeply  and  continuously ;  and  it  is  well  that  we  should 
learn  to  regard  this  as  a  bond  between  us  and  them. 
The  war  will  not  last  for  ever ;  and  when  it  is  over 
we  shall  have  to  live  in  peace,  and  some  day  or  other 
we  shall  try  to  live  in  amity,  with  those  whom  we 
now  regard  as  implacable  enemies.  We  shall  be 
the  better  able  to  do  this  if  we  can  familiarize 


264        THE   NEMESIS   OF  DOCILITY 

ourselves  with  the  thought  that  we  and  they  are 
suffering  in  what  is  in  the  last  resort  a  common 
cause;  that,  as  we  who  are  fighting  for  freedom 
are  working,  though  we  may  not  know  it,  for  the 
emancipation  of  Humanity  from  the  bonds  of  its 
lower  self,  so,  in  their  own  despite,  are  they  who 
are  selfishly  striving  to  dominate  the  world ;  in  fine, 
that  their  sorrows  and  miseries  as  well  as  ours  are 
growing-pains  of  the  human  spirit. 


PRINTED  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN  BY  RICHARD  CLAY  &  SONS,  LIMITED, 

BRUNSWICK  ST.,  STAMFORD  ST.,  S.E.,  AND   BUNGAY,  SUFFOLK. 


UNIVERSITY  OP  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

expiration  ?f  loan  £21       aEpIlca"011  '»  made  before 


JUL  S3 1921 

AUG191987 

,:  MAY  2  0  1 


87 


20m-ll,'20 


YB  21386 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


